Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WiFi Scanner MCP

WiFi Scanner MCP

by Swedishwizards
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Analyze Wi-Fi channel congestion

analyze_wifi_channels
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze nearby Wi-Fi access points by band and channel to score interference, recommend the least crowded router channel, rate current-channel congestion, and flag insecure networks.

Instructions

Analyze nearby access points per band and channel, score interference, recommend the least crowded channel for a router on 2.4 GHz (1/6/11) and 5 GHz, rate congestion on the channel this computer uses, and flag insecure nearby networks (open, WEP, old WPA). Use it for "why is my Wi-Fi slow", "which channel should my router use" or a Wi-Fi site survey. Read-only.

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": "analyze_wifi_channels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
freshNoForce a new scan instead of reusing one from the last 15 seconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only' sentence merely restates that, and it adds no new behavioral detail such as scan duration, OS location-permission requirements, or whether the 15-second cache is shared with other tools.

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 core capability list is front-loaded and every clause maps to a distinct output or use case, with no filler. It is a single dense sentence, though, and the trailing 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with the annotations rather than earning its place.

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 usefully sketches what the result contains: per-band/channel AP data, interference scores, a recommended channel, a congestion rating, and security flags. Gaps remain around platform/permission prerequisites and rough execution time for a forced fresh scan, which matter for a hardware-dependent scan.

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 optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that 'fresh' forces a new scan instead of reusing one from the last 15 seconds. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Analyze nearby access points per band and channel') and then enumerates the distinct outputs: interference scoring, channel recommendation for 2.4/5 GHz, congestion rating for the current channel, and insecure-network flagging. This makes it clearly distinguishable from a plain listing tool such as scan_wifi_networks, which would only surface raw APs.

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 gives three concrete triggering scenarios in quoted user language ('why is my Wi-Fi slow', 'which channel should my router use', site survey), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., for a raw AP list), so it doesn't reach a 5.

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