Skip to main content
Glama
Fistacho

ha-nexus-agent

by Fistacho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create category

labels_create_category

Create a category in a Home Assistant registry scope to group items such as automations. Supply scope and name, plus an optional MDI icon, to get the created category registry entry.

Instructions

Create a category within a registry scope.

Calls WS config/category_registry/create with scope and name, plus icon if given; Home Assistant assigns a new category_id, so calling this twice with the same name creates two separate categories.

Use when: you need a new category to group items within one scope, e.g. automations. Returns: the created category registry dict. Errors: on a WS failure, returns {"error": "<message>"} instead of raising.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iconNoOptional mdi icon identifier, e.g. 'mdi:tag'; omit for no icon.
nameYesDisplay name for the new category.
scopeYesRegistry scope the new category belongs to, e.g. 'automation'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.25.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / icon / description
      Added value: +"Optional mdi icon identifier, e.g. 'mdi:tag'; omit for no icon."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Display name for the new category."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Added value: +"Registry scope the new category belongs to, e.g. 'automation'."
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it names the underlying WS endpoint, concretizes the non-idempotent behavior (calling twice with the same name creates two separate categories, matching idempotentHint=false), and discloses error handling ('returns {"error": ...} instead of raising'). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 verb and resource, then organized into distinct behavior, use-when, returns, and errors sections. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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 small 3-param creation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, non-idempotency, and error semantics. Returns are noted even though the output schema carries them, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 the schema already documents scope, name, and icon semantics. The description restates which parameters are passed to the WS call but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a category within a registry scope') and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling label tools (labels_create_label) and area tools by tying it to the category registry. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'Use when' clause gives a concrete trigger ('you need a new category to group items within one scope, e.g. automations'), which is clear context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not-to-use (e.g., versus labels_create_label), so it is not a full 5.

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