Append a card to a Home Assistant Lovelace dashboard view using its URL path, view index, and valid card configuration.
Append a card to the given view.
card is any valid Lovelace card config (e.g. {"type": "entities", ...}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | ||
| url_path | Yes | ||
| view_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Append' which implies a mutation, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the dashboard must exist, whether append is idempotent, or what happens on failure. The fact that it can be a nested card config is mentioned, but that is parameter info rather than behavior.
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?
Very short, front-loaded with the action. The example for card adds some clarity without bloat. No wasted sentences, though the example might be marginally over-specific given the schema already implies an object.
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 mutation tool with 3 required params, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, this is incomplete. It does not explain what view_index refers to, whether the dashboard must be loaded, or what constitutes a valid card beyond an example.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'card' parameter loosely with an example, and does nothing for 'url_path' or 'view_index' – leaving 2 of 3 parameters completely undocumented. With 0% coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
States a specific verb (append) and resource (card to a view). It is reasonably distinguishable from replace_dashboard_card and set_dashboard_config by the 'append' verb, but it does not explicitly name the alternatives or scope like the calibration example did.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus replace_dashboard_card, delete_dashboard_card, or set_dashboard_config. There are no prerequisites or context notes about what 'view_index' refers to or which dashboard is being targeted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.