Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tplink-mcp

tplink-mcp

by axo4xo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_wifi_channel

Configure a Wi-Fi band's channel and width to reduce interference or optimize coverage. Requires confirmation and briefly restarts the radio, dropping connected clients.

Instructions

Set a band's channel (channel='auto' to auto-select) and optional width (htmode '20'/'40'/'80'). ⚠️ Restarts the radio: clients on that band drop for ~10 s; a DFS 5 GHz channel adds a ~60 s radar-scan quiet period. Requires confirm=True.

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": {
      "band": "<band>",
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "set_wifi_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandYes
htmodeNo
channelYes
confirmNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the real cost of the operation: radio restart, ~10 s client drop on that band, and an extra ~60 s DFS radar-scan quiet period, plus the confirm=True gate. It does not say whether the change is reversible or what happens on an invalid channel.

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, both dense with actionable content: syntax first, disruption warning second. Nothing is wasted and the warning is impossible to miss.

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?

For a disruptive mutation with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the essential safety and disruption facts. The missing piece is the accepted values for 'band', which the schema leaves as a bare string.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for three of four params: channel='auto', htmode '20'/'40'/'80', and confirm=True. The 'band' parameter has no documented accepted values, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: sets a band's channel with optional htmode width. It is clearly distinct from sibling read tools like wifi_info and from set_wifi_band, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Tells the agent to pass channel='auto' for auto-selection and confirm=True to proceed, and flags that DFS 5 GHz channels cost an extra ~60 s scan. No explicit contrast against set_wifi_band or set_wireless_advanced, so 4 rather than 5.

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