Home Assistant MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List blueprints

list_blueprints

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists installed automation and script blueprints with their paths, names, authors, sources, and input names so you can choose and reference them in Home Assistant.

Instructions

List installed blueprints for automations or scripts with their path, name, author, source and input names. To use one, save an automation whose config is {alias, use_blueprint: {path, input: {...}}}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_blueprints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No		automation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world listing. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields and the exact config shape needed to instantiate a blueprint, which is behavioral context the annotations cannot carry. It does not mention ordering or pagination, a minor gap.

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 tight sentences: what you get first, then how to act on it. Nothing is repeated from the title and every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and gives the consumption pattern for a listed blueprint, which is enough for an agent to call and use the results. The only missing piece is the semantics of the domain parameter and its default.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one parameter (domain) with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'for automations or scripts' implicitly maps to the enum values, but the description never names the parameter or states that it defaults to automation, so the schema field remains unexplained.

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 ('List installed blueprints') and bounds the scope to automations or scripts, which separates it cleanly from siblings like list_automations or list_scripts. It goes further by enumerating the fields returned (path, name, author, source, input names).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The second sentence gives concrete next-step guidance: to use a blueprint, save an automation with config {alias, use_blueprint: {path, input}}. That is actionable context, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for related listing needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.