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

ha-automation-mcp

by aderik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

overwrite_managed_package

Replace the entire managed package file in one operation for bulk migrations, then reload Home Assistant; use targeted upserts for routine changes.

Instructions

Overwrite the entire managed package file (expert / bulk migration use).

Triggers homeassistant.reload_all afterwards. Prefer the targeted upsert_* tools for day-to-day changes.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "overwrite_managed_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key side effect: it triggers homeassistant.reload_all afterwards, plus the full-replacement nature of the operation. It stops short of stating reversibility or any permission requirements, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two sentences plus a short parenthetical, front-loaded with the core action before the side effect and the alternative. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested content object, the description adequately covers purpose, side effects, and routing but leaves the input structure entirely unexplained. The opaque content parameter is the main remaining gap.

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% and the single 'content' parameter is an opaque nested object with additionalProperties=true. The description gives no hint about what content should contain, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Overwrite the entire managed package file') with clear scope ('entire'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with the targeted upsert_* tools, so an agent can tell it apart from get_managed_package and the upsert_* family.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly scopes usage ('expert / bulk migration use') and names the alternative with its selection condition ('Prefer the targeted upsert_* tools for day-to-day changes'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance the dimension rewards.

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