Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Keenetic NOC MCP

Keenetic NOC MCP

by Spiceman161
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get one device in full

get_device
Read-only

Retrieve full device details—DHCP lease, Wi-Fi rate, access policy, traffic shaping, and timestamps—by MAC, IP, or name.

Instructions

Every field the router holds for a single device: DHCP lease, Wi-Fi rate and mode, access policy, traffic shaping, first and last seen. Identify it by MAC, IP or name.

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": "get_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipNoCurrent IPv4 address.
macNoMAC address, any case.
nameNoRegistered name or hostname.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.0-dev

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, and the description adds that it is a full-record fetch with no filtering or projection. It does not mention not-found behavior or the exact response envelope, but for a simple read operation the added detail is sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. The most important facts—what is returned and how to identify the device—are front-loaded, and the field enumeration is concrete but compact.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the resource, the identifier options, and the content of the result. The main remaining omission is the response shape or error handling, which is minor for this tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers all three parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic that MAC, IP, and name are alternate identifiers, which helps an agent know that supplying any one is the intended invocation pattern.

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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: returns the router's full record for a single device, enumerated by field categories. It also names the lookup key (MAC, IP, or name), which separates it from list_devices and similar siblings.

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?

It is clear this is the tool to call when a single device's complete record is needed rather than a list. It lacks an explicit contrast such as 'use list_devices for multiple devices,' but the single-device framing and identifier requirements provide enough context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools