Home Assistant MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Validate automation config

validate_automation_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a draft automation configuration without saving it: run local structure checks, verify triggers, conditions, and actions with Home Assistant, and flag missing entities before deployment.

Instructions

Check a draft automation config without saving it. Runs a local structural check, asks Home Assistant to validate the triggers, conditions and actions through the validate_config WebSocket command, and warns about entities that do not exist.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "validate_automation_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`config`	Yes	The automation config to check, as JSON.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further: it names the three validation stages, discloses the backend call (validate_config WebSocket command), and notes that nonexistent-entity warnings are produced. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields; it only stops short of describing failure modes or output shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope constraint is front-loaded and the remaining sentence enumerates the checks compactly with no filler. Naming the internal WebSocket command is arguably implementation detail, but it is short and diagnostically useful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should convey what a caller gets back; it only mentions entity warnings, leaving the result shape (valid flag, error list, severity) unspecified. For a validator whose whole purpose is producing a verdict, that is a noticeable gap, though the process description is otherwise adequate.

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 a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already saying 'The automation config to check, as JSON.' The description only repeats that it is a draft config, adding no structure, key expectations, or format hints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (check/validate) and resource (a draft automation config) plus the crucial scope caveat 'without saving it'. The resource name also separates it from validate_script_config and check_config, so an agent can pick it 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Check a draft ... without saving it' implies the pre-save validation use case, which is genuine usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus validate_script_config or the broader check_config, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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