Skip to main content
Glama

Submit a config flow step

integrations_submit_config_flow_step
Destructive

Submit user input for a Home Assistant config flow step to advance forms, validate credentials, or create a config entry.

Instructions

Submit user input for the current step of a config flow.

Calls POST /api/config/config_entries/flow/{flow_id} with user_input. What this does depends entirely on the integration domain driving the flow: it may just advance to the next form, or it may validate credentials against the integration's own device/cloud service and create or overwrite a real config entry that HA loads. HA does not signal in advance which step is the last one, so any submitted step — not only a visibly "final" one — can be the one that creates the entry.

Use when: providing the values a config-flow step asked for. Not for: reading the current step without submitting anything — use integrations_get_config_flow; cancelling a flow before it finishes — use integrations_abort_config_flow. Returns: the next step (form), a step with errors, or the finished config entry. The returned step's last_step field is True only when the integration explicitly declares this is the final step, and None otherwise — most integrations leave it None even on their actual last step, so None does not mean more steps remain. Errors: raises httpx.HTTPStatusError if flow_id is unknown or expired. Limits: the integration handling this domain may reach an external device or cloud service while validating user_input; a config entry can be created without warning on any step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flow_idYesFlow id from `integrations_start_config_flow` or `integrations_list_flows_in_progress`.
user_inputYesAnswers for the current step, matching the fields in the flow's `data_schema` (e.g. host, API key, chosen device).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / flow_id / description
      Added value: +"Flow id from `integrations_start_config_flow` or `integrations_list_flows_in_progress`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_input / description
      Added value: +"Answers for the current step, matching the fields in the flow's `data_schema` (e.g. host, API key, chosen device)."
  2. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the call may validate credentials against an external device/cloud service, may create or overwrite a real config entry, and any submitted step — not just a visibly final one — can be the entry-creating step. It also documents the last_step=True/None semantics and the httpx.HTTPStatusError on unknown/expired flow_id, which are not derivable from annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well front-loaded with the core action, then organized into labeled sections (Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors / Limits) that each carry distinct value. Slightly long — the endpoint string and extended last_step explanation add bulk — but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the risk profile, return-shape caveats, error behavior, and external-service side effects. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and understand the consequences.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so flow_id and user_input are already fully documented in the schema (including the data_schema matching requirement). The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond restating that user_input drives the flow, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Submit user input for the current step of a config flow') and even names the underlying endpoint, making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like integrations_get_config_flow and integrations_abort_config_flow.

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' and 'Not for' sections name the two relevant alternatives (reading the current step vs cancelling the flow) with the exact tool names. Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools