tplink-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_dhcp_settings

Retrieves the TP-Link router's DHCP server configuration, including enabled state, IP pool range, lease time, gateway, and DNS settings.

Instructions

DHCP server config: enable, pool ipaddr_start/end, leasetime (minutes), gateway, DNS.

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": "get_dhcp_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries more burden. It discloses the configuration fields returned but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or how errors are handled. The get-prefixed name and field listing provide some signal, but behavioral disclosure is limited.

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?

The one-sentence fragment is front-loaded with the resource and lists the relevant fields without waste. It is terse but effective for a zero-parameter getter, though it could be slightly clearer with a verb like 'retrieves'.

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 an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource and the key fields returned. It does not need to explain return structure, though it could note read-only behavior or authentication expectations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain arguments and appropriately focuses on the result fields instead.

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 clearly identifies the resource (DHCP server configuration) and enumerates the specific fields covered (enable, pool range, lease time, gateway, DNS). It is distinguishable from the setter sibling set_dhcp_settings by the get-style name and read-oriented phrasing, though it does not explicitly state 'retrieves' or name the sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and field list—an agent can infer this is used to inspect DHCP configuration—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives such as dhcp_leases.

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