Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pihole-mcp

pihole-mcp

by chris2ao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_host_info

Retrieve host hardware model, kernel, and OS details to inspect the system running Pi-hole.

Instructions

Host hardware model, kernel, and OS details.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_host_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but the read-only, zero-parameter nature of a 'get' on local host data makes risk minimal. It still says nothing about whether the data is live or cached, or how much detail (e.g. all interfaces, full kernel string) is returned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with the subject (host) and returned fields front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably lean enough to leave useful disambiguation on the table.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. The main missing piece is routing versus the other info-style siblings, which is a modest gap for a simple read tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

The description names the resource (host) and the specific returned fields (hardware model, kernel, OS details), so the agent knows roughly what it gets. However, among siblings such as get_system_info, server_info, and get_version, there is no differentiation, leaving ambiguity about which info tool to pick.

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 call this versus get_system_info, server_info, or get_version, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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