ha-nexus-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List installable integration domains

integrations_list_flow_handlers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all integration domains that support a config flow. Use it to check if a domain can be installed via UI flow before attempting setup.

Instructions

List every integration domain that supports a config flow.

Calls GET /api/config/config_entries/flow_handlers over HTTP for the domains HA can set up through the UI-style flow (as opposed to YAML-only integrations).

Use when: checking whether a domain can be installed via integrations_start_config_flow before attempting it. Not for: domains already configured — use system_list_integrations. Returns: list of domain strings, e.g. ["shelly", "hue", ...]. Errors: raises httpx.HTTPStatusError if the HA API request fails.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0May 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the underlying HTTP endpoint, the error behavior (`httpx.HTTPStatusError` on API failure), and the flow-vs-YAML distinction. This is genuine behavioral detail not present in structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into labeled Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors blocks. Each line earns its place and none repeats the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient — it adds scope, routing, endpoint, and error behavior without restating the schema's return contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 and the schema (100% coverage) carries no burden. The description correctly spends no space on parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource ('List every integration domain that supports a config flow') and immediately distinguishes the scope from YAML-only integrations. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like system_list_integrations without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'Use when' (pre-checking a domain before calling `integrations_start_config_flow`) and 'Not for' (already-configured domains, routing to `system_list_integrations`). Both the trigger and the alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server