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

ha-automation-mcp

by aderik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_registry_entity

Modify Home Assistant entity registry entries by renaming IDs, changing names, icons, areas, or toggling disabled and hidden flags.

Instructions

Mutate a registry entity. Supported keys in changes: name, icon, area_id, new_entity_id (rename), disabled_by (bool), hidden_by (bool).

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "update_registry_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changesYes
entity_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the mutation surface (rename via `new_entity_id`, disable/hide booleans) which is genuinely useful behavioral information, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or side effects on referencing entities.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and then the key list; no filler. The backtick-heavy key list is compact, though `entity_id` is never addressed.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a fully opaque nested-object schema, the description covers the allowed change keys but leaves the required `entity_id` meaning, failure modes, and effect on dependents unspecified.

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% and `changes` is an opaque object with additionalProperties:true and no documented keys. The description enumerates the accepted keys and their types (`disabled_by`, `hidden_by` as bool; `new_entity_id` as rename), which is meaningful compensation the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb ('Mutate') and resource ('registry entity'), and the mapping of key names like `new_entity_id` (rename) clarifies scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_registry_entity, delete_registry_entity, and list_registry_entities, though it never says what a 'registry entity' actually is.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite ~50 sibling tools including delete_registry_entity and get_registry_entity. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to the read/delete siblings.

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