Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AsusWRT MCP

AsusWRT MCP

by X1pheR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

asuswrt_wan_details

Inspect WAN protocol, IP, gateway, DNS, and interface details to troubleshoot router connectivity and verify network configuration.

Instructions

Inspect WAN protocol, IP, gateway, DNS, and interface details.

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": "asuswrt_wan_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description clearly indicates a read-only inspection operation ('Inspect'), implying no side effects. However, it could further specify that no state is modified, which is already clear from the verb.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and key details. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 zero parameters and many sibling tools, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple inspection tool. It could briefly mention return value format, but the lack of output schema reduces burden.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description inherently satisfies parameter semantics; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'WAN details', listing concrete properties (protocol, IP, gateway, DNS, interface). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like asuswrt_lan_details or asuswrt_network_overview.

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 description implies use when WAN details are needed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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