hass-mcp

add_view

Add a new view to a Home Assistant dashboard with configurable title, path, position, and a dry-run preview option to avoid mistakes.

Instructions

Add a new view to a dashboard (live)

Args: url_path: Dashboard URL path, or None for the default dashboard. view_config: The view config dict, e.g. {"title": "Garage", "path": "garage"}. position: Insert index among views (default: append). dry_run: Preview without saving.

Returns: Save result with a backup_id, or a dry-run preview.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "add_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`position`	No
`url_path`	No
`view_config`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the operation saves (with backup_id) and that dry_run prevents saving, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention side effects like overwriting or restrictions, but given no annotations, this is reasonable.

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?

The description is clear and front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then an Args block. It is concise without explaining every schema detail, and each sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose but appropriate for 4 params.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters with examples and notes the return behavior (backup_id or preview). It lacks when-to-use guidance, but overall is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain params. It does: url_path (None for default), view_config (with example), position (insert index, default append), dry_run (preview without saving). This adds meaning beyond bare schema.

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?

The description 'Add a new view to a dashboard (live)' clearly states the action (add), the resource (new view to a dashboard), and the 'live' qualifier distinguishes it from a dry-run operation. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like add_card or remove_view.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (when you want to add a view) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No mention of prerequisites or alternative tools, making it adequate but not explicit.

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