Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pihole-mcp

pihole-mcp

by chris2ao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_config_item

Append one value to a Pi-hole array setting and preview the change unless confirmation is set.

Instructions

Append one value to an array setting, e.g. element='dns.upstreams', value='1.1.1.1'. Preview unless 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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "add_config_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYes
confirmNo
elementYes
restartNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is a dry-run preview unless confirm=true, which is important for a mutation. However, it says nothing about restart semantics (restart defaults to true), required permissions, or the consequences of confirming.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a realistic example and the confirm caveat. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 described. For a mutating config tool with zero annotation coverage, the description covers the preview/confirm workflow but omits restart behavior and permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies element and value through the concrete example and explains confirm via the preview statement, but gives no explanation of the restart parameter or its default of true, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Append one value to an array setting', with a concrete example ('dns.upstreams' = '1.1.1.1'). The append-semantics distinguish it implicitly from update_config and remove_config_item, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Preview unless confirm=true' describes default behavior rather than when to choose this tool over update_config, remove_config_item, or get_config. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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