enable_appControl app availability in Homey by enabling or disabling it. Disabled apps stop running and their devices become unavailable.
Enable or disable a Homey app. Disabled apps won't run and their devices become unavailable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | App ID | |
| enabled | Yes | true to enable, false to disable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the runtime impact: disabled apps stop running and their devices become unavailable. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, providing a fuller picture of side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and a meaningful consequence in the second. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle tool with two fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It explains both the purpose and the practical effect on devices, and the annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. No output schema is needed, and the description suffices for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('App ID' and 'true to enable, false to disable'). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb phrase 'Enable or disable a Homey app' and reinforces it with a concrete consequence: 'Disabled apps won't run and their devices become unavailable.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like restart_app (restart) and uninstall_app (remove), providing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context of use: to control whether an app runs and affects device availability. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tool names (list_apps, restart_app, uninstall_app) make the boundary intuitive. The effect on devices also implies caution, which is a subtle usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.