tplink-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_wifi_security

Configure a Wi-Fi band's security mode and PSK; applying changes restarts that radio and disconnects all clients until they re-authenticate, so confirm is required.

Instructions

Set a band's security mode / PSK. ⚠️ Restarts the radio and disconnects EVERY client on that band until they re-auth with the new settings. 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>",
      "encryption": "<encryption>"
    },
    "name": "set_wifi_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`band`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`password`	No
`encryption`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 well: it warns that the radio restarts and EVERY client on the band disconnects until re-auth, and that confirm=True is mandatory. It omits permissions/auth requirements and return behavior, but the key destructive side effects are disclosed.

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 compact sentences with the disruptive warning front-loaded and zero wasted text. The critical constraint (confirm=True) is stated directly.

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 values need not be explained. The description covers the main behavioral risk and the confirm requirement, but leaves parameter value domains (band, encryption) undocumented, which is a notable gap for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of band (a radio band), encryption/mode-PSK, password, and confirm=True, but gives no allowed values or format details for band or encryption, leaving significant gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a band's security mode / PSK'), making it distinguishable from siblings like set_wifi_band and set_wifi_channel. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the operation is clear.

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 required band/encryption parameters and the note that confirm=True is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative tools such as set_guest_network or set_wps.

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