Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AsusWRT MCP

AsusWRT MCP

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

asuswrt_guest_wifi

Toggle a guest Wi-Fi slot on or off for a specified band and slot number. Use this to control guest network access without logging into the router.

Instructions

Enable or disable a guest Wi-Fi slot.

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": {
      "band": "<band>",
      "slot": "<slot>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "asuswrt_guest_wifi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandYes
slotYes
confirmNo
dry_runNo
enabledYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'enable or disable' but provides no details on consequences, reversibility, or side effects. The presence of 'confirm' and 'dry_run' parameters hints at cautious behavior, but the description does not explain their meaning.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks critical detail and does not earn its brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain required fields, enum values, or the purpose of auxiliary parameters like 'confirm' and 'dry_run'.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are explained in the description. The description does not mention 'band', 'slot', 'enabled', 'confirm', or 'dry_run', leaving their semantics entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly uses 'enable or disable' as the verb and 'guest Wi-Fi slot' as the resource, making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like asuswrt_guest_lan_access or asuswrt_guest_networks, which also deal with guest Wi-Fi aspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, side effects, or conditions mentioned. The agent has no context for appropriate invocation.

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