enable_appToggle a Homey app on or off to control whether it runs and whether its devices remain available.
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.
v3.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / patternAdded value: +"^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9_-]*(\\.[a-z0-9][a-z0-9_-]*)*$"v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by spelling out the real-world blast radius — the app stops running and dependent devices go unavailable — which an agent cannot derive from a boolean 'enabled' flag alone. It stops short of noting effects on flows that reference those devices or what happens with an unknown app id.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste: the action comes first, the impact second. Nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 two-parameter, fully documented toggle with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the service impact of disabling. Slightly incomplete in not addressing reversibility/re-enable behavior explicitly or failure modes for invalid app IDs.
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% and both parameters are documented inline ('App ID' and 'true to enable, false to disable'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, id-validation, or error-behavior detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.
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?
Names a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (a Homey app), and adds the operational consequence that disabled apps stop running and their devices become unavailable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as restart_app or uninstall_app, and the tool name only mentions 'enable' while the description covers both directions.
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 consequence sentence implies when you'd use it (taking an app and its devices out of service, or bringing them back), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion such as 'use restart_app instead if the app is crashing but should stay available'. Usage must be inferred from effect rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.