list_areasLists every room and zone with its entity count, providing area IDs and names to filter entity searches by area.
List all areas (rooms/zones) of the home with how many entities each contains.
Use area_id or name from here to filter search_entities by area.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| areas | Yes | ||
| unassigned_entity_count | Yes | Entities that belong to no area |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declare this as a safe, closed-domain read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that each area comes back with its entity count and that its identifiers are reusable downstream; it says nothing about empty homes, unnamed areas, or ordering.
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, zero filler, with the resource definition first and the follow-on usage hint second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
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?
With no parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose and downstream usage adequately. Minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens when no areas exist or how the two identifier forms differ in practice.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on the return fields (`area_id`, `name`) that serve as inputs to other tools.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List all areas") and disambiguates the term with "(rooms/zones) of the home." It also states what each result carries (entity counts), so the agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent into the workflow: take `area_id` or `name` from here and pass it to search_entities. There are no exclusions or "don't use this when" cases, but for a zero-arg enumeration tool the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.