AI アシスタントを使用して Home Assistant デバイスを制御するためのモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) 統合。
このMCPを使用すると、AIアシスタントがHome Assistantデバイスを制御できるようになります。以下のツールが提供されます。
Home Assistantインスタンス内のエンティティを検索する
デバイスを制御する（オン/オフにする）
光の色と明るさを制御する
Related MCP server: Hass-MCP
Python 3.11以上
Home Assistant インスタンスが実行中であり、API 経由でアクセス可能
ホームアシスタント長期アクセストークン
このリポジトリをクローンする
Python 環境をセットアップします。
cd home-assistant
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
pip install -U pip
pip install uv
uv pip install -e .Home Assistantインスタンスに移動する
プロフィールに移動します（サイドバーのユーザー名をクリックします）
「長期アクセストークン」までスクロールします。
「MCP統合」のようなわかりやすい名前で新しいトークンを作成します
トークンをコピーします（一度だけ表示されます）
Cursor の MCP 構成に次の構成を追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"home_assistant": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"/path/to/your/home-assistant-mcp",
"run",
"main.py"
],
"env": {
"HOME_ASSISTANT_TOKEN": "your_home_assistant_token_here"
},
"inheritEnv": true
}
}
}交換する：
/path/to/your/home-assistantこのディレクトリへの実際のパスに置き換えます
your_home_assistant_token_hereに Home Assistant 長期アクセストークンを入力します。
デフォルトでは、MCP はhttp://homeassistant.local:8123で Home Assistant に接続しようとします。
Home Assistant が別の URL にある場合は、 app/config.pyのHA_URL変数を変更できます。
設定が完了すると、Cursor AI を使用して Home Assistant デバイスを制御できるようになります。
デバイスを検索:「リビングルームの照明を探す」
制御デバイス：「キッチンのライトをつけて」
ライトの色を制御する: 「リビングルームのライトを赤に設定して」
明るさを調整する: 「ダイニングルームの照明を青、明るさ 50% に設定」
MCP は、高度な照明制御機能をサポートするようになりました。
カラーコントロール: 互換性のあるライトのRGBカラーを設定します
RGB値（各コンポーネント0～255）を使用して色を指定します
例: 赤の場合はset_device_color("light.living_room", 255, 0, 0)
明るさコントロール：ライトの明るさを調整します
オプションの明るさパラメータ（0～255）
色の変更と組み合わせることができます
例: 中程度の明るさの青の場合set_device_color("light.dining_room", 0, 0, 255, brightness=128)
認証エラーが発生した場合は、トークンが正しく、期限切れになっていないことを確認してください。
設定されたURLでHome Assistantインスタンスにアクセスできることを確認します
色の制御に関する問題について:
ライトエンティティがRGBカラーコントロールをサポートしていることを確認する
色を変える前にライトが点灯していることを確認してください
現在の実装では、デバイスを制御するために 2 段階のプロセスが必要です。
自然言語を使用してエンティティを検索する
特定のentity_idを使用してエンティティを制御する
計画されている機能強化では、エンティティを制御デバイス ツールに公開するためのより動的な方法を作成し、AI が次のことを実行できるようにします。
より自然なコマンドでデバイスを直接制御する（例：「キッチンのライトを消して」）
頻繁に使用するエンティティをキャッシュしてアクセスを高速化する
明るさ、温度、その他の属性の調整など、より複雑な操作をサポートします
エンティティグループとシーンをより直感的に操作する
これにより、AI アシスタントを介して Home Assistant デバイスを制御する際の操作時間が大幅に短縮され、よりシームレスなユーザー エクスペリエンスが実現します。
Control a Home Assistant entity by turning it on or off.
Args:
entity_id: The Home Assistant entity ID to control (format: domain.entity)
state: The desired state ('on' or 'off')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| state | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('turning it on or off') but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., if turning off a device has irreversible effects), rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the 'Args' section efficiently documents parameters without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.
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?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'entity_id' is a Home Assistant entity ID with a specific format ('domain.entity') and that 'state' accepts 'on' or 'off' values. This clarifies the purpose and constraints of both parameters, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Control a Home Assistant entity by turning it on or off.' This specifies the verb ('control'), resource ('Home Assistant entity'), and action ('turning it on or off'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_device_color' (which might control color instead of on/off state), so it misses the highest score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_entities' (which might be for finding entities) or 'set_device_color' (which might control color settings), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. This leaves the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for Home Assistant entities matching a natural language description.
Args:
description: Natural language description of the entity (e.g., "office light", "kitchen fan")
Returns:
A list of matching entity IDs with their friendly names, or an error message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search operation and return format (list of entity IDs with friendly names or error message), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return values adequately. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., search scope, limitations) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.
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?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the 'description' parameter as a natural language description with examples ('office light', 'kitchen fan'), clarifying its purpose and format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Home Assistant entities'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on search functionality rather than control or configuration. It specifies the search is based on natural language descriptions, which is a distinct operation from the sibling tools.
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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching for entities by natural language description), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for discovery purposes, which is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like control_device or set_device_color.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set the color and optionally brightness of a light entity.
Args:
entity_id: The Home Assistant entity ID to control (format: light.entity)
red: Red component (0-255)
green: Green component (0-255)
blue: Blue component (0-255)
brightness: Optional brightness level (0-255)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | ||
| red | Yes | ||
| green | Yes | ||
| blue | Yes | ||
| brightness | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a write operation ('Set') but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. While it specifies the action, it lacks critical behavioral details like whether this requires authentication, what happens on invalid inputs, or if changes are reversible.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying parameter details without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, permissions) and return values. For a write operation with 5 parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding full tool behavior.
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 fully compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: entity_id format ('light.entity'), RGB component ranges (0-255), and brightness as optional with range. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, which only shows types and titles without context.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set the color and optionally brightness') and target resource ('a light entity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'control_device' (more generic) and 'search_entities' (read-only). The verb 'set' is precise and indicates a write operation.
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 description implies usage for controlling light color/brightness but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'control_device' (which might handle other device types or operations) or 'search_entities' (for discovery). No explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0control_device1 field changedInput schema / titleAdded value: +"control_deviceArguments"search_entities1 field changedInput schema / titleAdded value: +"search_entitiesArguments"set_device_color1 field changedInput schema / titleAdded value: +"set_device_colorArguments"control_devicesearch_entitiesset_device_colorScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap. control_device handles basic on/off states, search_entities finds devices by description, and set_device_color manages color/brightness for lights. An agent can easily distinguish when to use each tool based on the specific operation needed.
All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout: control_device, search_entities, and set_device_color. The naming is predictable and follows the same grammatical structure, making the tool set easy to understand at a glance.
With only 3 tools, this feels thin for a Home Assistant integration that presumably manages many device types and operations. While the tools cover basic control, search, and color settings, the scope suggests more operations would be needed for comprehensive home automation coverage. The count is borderline minimal for the domain.
There are significant gaps in the tool surface for home automation. Missing operations include getting device status/state, adjusting non-color attributes (like temperature for thermostats or speed for fans), managing scenes/automations, and handling other entity types beyond lights. The current tools provide only partial coverage of the Home Assistant domain.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Use AI models for chat, image, and video generation from Claude Code and other MCP hosts.
Personal assistant MCP server with search, execute, packages, jobs, secrets, and integrations.
Hosted MCP server connecting AI assistants to 9,000+ apps and 40,000+ actions via Zapier.
