Home Assistant MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List scenes

list_scenes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Home Assistant scenes with entity ID, config ID, and last activation, and filter by name or ID to find scenes; YAML-defined scenes appear but cannot be edited via the API.

Instructions

List scenes with their entity id, config id and last activation. Scenes defined in YAML are listed but cannot be edited through the API.

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_scenes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Substring of name or id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior those annotations do not: scenes defined in YAML are still listed but are not editable through the API, which is a meaningful constraint an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial. It doesn't cover ordering, pagination, or result size.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the returned-field summary is front-loaded before the YAML caveat. Every clause conveys information an agent can act on.

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?

For a simple, single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the returned fields and flags the read-only-via-API case. Only ordering/pagination and the empty-result case are unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as a "Substring of name or id", so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra syntax or matching semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ("List scenes") and names the fields returned (entity id, config id, last activation), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_scene or list_automations, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: this is the enumeration counterpart to get_scene, and the YAML caveat hints at a limitation. But there is no explicit "use this when..." or "for a single scene use get_scene instead" routing guidance, and no mention of filtering via the query parameter as a usage pattern.

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