Rank Pi-hole clients by DNS query count, with blocked-only ranking and optional long-term time range.
Top clients by query count (blocked=true ranks by blocked queries). from_ts/until_ts use the long-term database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| blocked | No | ||
| from_ts | No | ||
| until_ts | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / from_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / until_tsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that blocked=true changes ranking semantics and that from_ts/until_ts query the long-term database, but it does not state read-only behavior, permission needs, limits, or other operational traits.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. The key ranking behavior and timestamp database scope are front-loaded.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations. The description omits the count parameter, timestamp format, and any usage guidance against siblings, leaving substantial gaps for an agent.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains blocked and the long-term database scope for from_ts/until_ts, but it leaves count undocumented and does not specify timestamp units or null behavior.
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 description clearly identifies the resource and metric: top clients ranked by query count, with a note that blocked=true ranks by blocked queries. It distinguishes the tool from generic stats tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings like get_top_blocked or get_top_permitted.
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?
It explains the effect of the blocked flag but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_top_blocked, get_top_permitted, get_client_history, or get_stats. An agent must infer tool selection 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.