AsusWRT MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

asuswrt_port_forwarding

Manage AsusWRT router port forwarding rules by listing, enabling, disabling, adding, or removing mappings for TCP/UDP traffic to internal IPs and ports.

Instructions

List, enable/disable, add, or remove port forwarding rules.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "asuswrt_port_forwarding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ip`	No
`name`	No
`port`	No
`action`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`dry_run`	No
`protocol`	No	TCP
`ip_external`	No
`port_external`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lists actions but does not disclose behavioral traits like immediacy of changes, need for confirmation, or side effects. With no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate transparency for a tool with multiple mutating actions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One sentence is concise but not optimally structured; it lists actions without prioritizing the most common use case. The lack of detail makes it less useful despite 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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions for parameters or return values, the tool is severely under-documented. The agent cannot know what fields are required for each action or what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 0%; the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters. Even the enum values for action are listed in the schema but not elaborated in the description, leaving the meaning of fields like name, ip, port, etc., completely unspecified.

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 the verb (list, enable/disable, add, remove) and resource (port forwarding rules). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like asuswrt_open_ports or asuswrt_upnp.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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

Deploy Server