Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pihole-mcp

pihole-mcp

by chris2ao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_group

Create a Pi-hole group with a name, optional comment, and enabled status to organize clients and apply DNS filtering or ad-blocking rules.

Instructions

Create a group.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
commentNo
enabledNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. "Create" implies a write/mutation, but there is no mention of permission requirements, duplicate-name behavior, what the enabled/comment defaults mean, or whether the operation is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency. As in the calibration for a one-word description, extreme shortness here reflects missing content, not good concision.

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

Completeness2/5

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. Still, for a parameterized mutation tool with no annotations and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description should compensate but adds no parameter meaning at all. The names (name, comment, enabled) are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but the default enabled=true and the role of comment are never clarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Create a group" states a verb (create) and a resource (group), so the basic purpose is recoverable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name add_group and gives no detail about what a group is or how it differs from update_group/remove_group beyond the obvious verb contrast.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling mutations like update_group or remove_group, and no prerequisites (e.g. must the group not already exist, does it require an existing adlist/domain context). Nothing in the description routes the agent.

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