Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ha-automation-mcp

ha-automation-mcp

by aderik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_helper

Retrieve the configuration of a single helper in the managed package to inspect or modify its settings.

Instructions

Return the config of a single helper in the managed package.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "helper_id": "<helper_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_helper"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
helper_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the helper or domain doesn't exist, or what 'config' includes. It does confirm the scope is a single helper, but discloses little beyond purpose.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a read tool with two required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't clarify the parameters or the shape of the returned config, leaving the agent to infer both.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters (domain, helper_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate; an agent must guess the expected format of domain and helper_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returning the config of a single helper. 'Single helper' distinguishes it from the plural siblings like list_helpers, and the config-return framing separates it from upsert_helper/delete_helper. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the scope is clear enough for selection.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_helpers for enumeration. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'single'.

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