tplink-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

router_status

Retrieve TP-Link router status—firmware/hardware version, mode, WAN IP, uptime, CPU/memory use, and SSIDs—with Wi-Fi PSKs redacted unless reveal_secrets is true.

Instructions

Router overview: firmware/hardware version, operation mode, WAN IP, uptime, CPU/memory usage, SSIDs. Wi-Fi PSKs are redacted unless reveal_secrets=True.

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": "router_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reveal_secrets`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a meaningful security behavior: PSKs are redacted by default and only exposed when reveal_secrets=True. It does not cover permission requirements or cost/latency of the call, but the redaction disclosure is the substantive trait an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, the returned field set front-loaded, and the security caveat placed immediately after. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope plus the one parameter's effect. The only remaining gap is routing among the many overlapping sibling tools, which matters given how fragmented the endpoint set is.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does precisely: reveal_secrets gates whether Wi-Fi PSKs are returned or redacted, implying the false default. That is the exact semantic the bare boolean in the schema lacks.

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 enumerates the exact data returned (firmware/hardware version, operation mode, WAN IP, uptime, CPU/memory, SSIDs), which for a read-only overview tool is effectively its purpose. It does not distinguish itself from siblings that cover overlapping subsets (get_firmware_info, wifi_info), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_firmware_info, wifi_info, or list_clients, all of which overlap with the listed fields. The only conditional guidance is about reveal_secrets, not about tool selection.

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