Configure Pi-hole clients by IP, MAC, hostname, CIDR subnet, or interface. Assign group IDs to control DNS filtering and ad-blocking access.
Configure a client by IP, MAC, hostname, CIDR subnet, or :interface, and assign group IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groups | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| client_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about what happens if the client already exists (upsert vs error), required permissions, whether existing settings are overwritten, or the effect of assigning group IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the identifier forms and group assignment front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the vague verb slightly weakens the opening.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, but for an unannotated mutation tool the description omits duplicate-handling behavior, permissions, and comment semantics. These gaps are significant enough that an agent cannot predict the outcome of a call with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 adds real meaning for client_id by listing accepted identifier forms (IP, MAC, hostname, CIDR, :interface) and covers the groups parameter ('assign group IDs'), but the comment parameter and the format of group IDs are left undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Configure' is vague for a tool named add_client and does not distinguish it from the sibling update_client or remove_client. The description does specify the resource (a client) and enumerates accepted identifier forms, which helps, but the create-vs-update distinction is left to the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than update_client, list_clients, or get_client_suggestions, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The agent must infer that this is the creation path from the tool name only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.