Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
starlink-enterprise-mcp

starlink-enterprise-mcp

by WiFiWoW
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

post_routers_sandbox_clients

Update sandbox state for multiple clients simultaneously. Sandboxed clients are restricted to domains in the allow list, with duplicate handling by latest expiry.

Instructions

Batch update sandbox clients — Required permission: Device command and configuration, Edit.Update the sandbox state for multiple clients. If sandboxing is enabled, sandboxed clients will only have access to domains in the sandbox domain allow list. If a client is duplicated, records the client with the latest expiry. — [POST /public/v2/routers/sandbox/clients]

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": "post_routers_sandbox_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: sandboxed clients only access allow-listed domains, duplicate handling using latest expiry. No contradictions.

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?

The description is concise, front-loading the main action and permission, then providing necessary behavioral details in two sentences. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema or parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, required permissions, and functional behavior. It could mention batch size limits but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to add parameter semantics. It correctly omits parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 clearly states it performs a batch update of sandbox clients, which distinguishes it from the sibling GET tool for reading. It also explains the effect of sandboxing and duplicate handling.

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?

The description specifies the required permission ('Device command and configuration, Edit') and provides context for when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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