Skip to main content
Glama

Current Wi-Fi connection

get_current_wifi
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current Wi-Fi connection details (network name, BSSID, signal, channel, band, security, link speed when available) to verify the active wireless connection without changes.

Instructions

Show the Wi-Fi network this computer is connected to right now: name, BSSID, signal, channel, band, security and link speed when available. 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": "get_current_wifi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The phrase 'when available' usefully signals that some fields may be absent. It does not say what is returned (or raised) when the machine is offline or has no Wi-Fi adapter, which is the main behavioral unknown left.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first and the field list after; every element is informative. The closing 'Read-only' clause restates an annotation and is the only wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the enumerated field list is the most valuable content and it is present. The remaining gap is the disconnected/no-adapter case, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The field list describes return values rather than inputs, which is harmless but not counted as parameter semantics.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Show the Wi-Fi network this computer is connected to right now') and enumerates the fields returned (name, BSSID, signal, channel, band, security, link speed). The 'connected right now' scope inherently separates it from scan_wifi_networks and analyze_wifi_channels, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

Usage is only implied: read this when you need the machine's live connection details rather than a survey of nearby networks. No alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. With zero parameters there is little routing risk, but the guidance is not explicit.

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