Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AsusWRT MCP

AsusWRT MCP

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

asuswrt_remote_syslog

Configure remote UDP syslog forwarding to one private IPv4 destination or disable it, with confirmation and dry-run safeguards.

Instructions

Configure remote UDP syslog to one private IPv4 destination, or disable it, with confirmation and dry-run safeguards.

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": {
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "asuswrt_remote_syslog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo
confirmNo
dry_runNo
enabledYes
destinationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the UDP protocol, private-IPv4 constraint, and the existence of confirm/dry-run safeguards, but says nothing about required privileges, persistence, what happens to existing config, or reversibility.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a configuration-mutation tool with five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits destination format, port behavior, and the effect of the required 'enabled' flag, leaving an agent under-informed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema provides no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly touches 'destination' and the enable/disable toggle; it never explains port format, confirm semantics, or what a dry-run returns, leaving most of the five parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('remote UDP syslog') plus scope ('one private IPv4 destination, or disable it'). This clearly separates it from the many read-only status siblings, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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?

The 'or disable it' clause implies the two modes of use, and the mention of 'confirmation and dry-run safeguards' hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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