Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tplink-mcp

tplink-mcp

by axo4xo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_reservation

Reserve an IP address for a device's MAC address to resolve static-in-pool conflicts and keep the device reliably assigned.

Instructions

Reserve an IP for a MAC (AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF). The correct fix for a device stuck in static-in-pool limbo — reserve it instead of relying on a static IP inside the pool.

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": {
      "mac": "<mac>",
      "ip": "<ip>"
    },
    "name": "add_reservation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYes
macYes
commentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation by saying 'Reserve an IP for a MAC', but it does not disclose permissions required, whether an existing reservation is overwritten, validation behavior, or side effects on DHCP.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful usage context without unnecessary repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the main idea and a key use case. However, it omits the optional comment parameter and important behavioral details such as overwrite behavior and validation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the MAC address format example 'AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF' and clarifies the IP/MAC relationship, but it does not explain the optional 'comment' parameter or IP format expectations.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reserve an IP for a MAC'. It clearly identifies the operation as creating an IP reservation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_reservations or remove_reservation.

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?

It gives a concrete scenario for use: fixing a device stuck in 'static-in-pool limbo' by reserving an IP instead of using a static IP inside the pool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the intended use case is clear.

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