Retrieve Pi-hole network devices with MAC addresses, vendors, IPs, hostnames, first/last seen times, and query counts. Use it to monitor connected clients and troubleshoot network activity.
Pi-hole's network table: MAC address, vendor, IPs, hostnames, first/last seen, query count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_devices | No | ||
| max_addresses | No |
| 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, yet it discloses nothing beyond a field list. It says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, ordering, or how limiting parameters affect results.
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?
It is a single compact, front-loaded sentence with no waste. The trade-off is that its brevity comes from being a noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose.
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 the two limiting parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no usage context. For a tool with two ambiguous knobs, this leaves real gaps.
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% and the description never mentions max_devices or max_addresses. An agent cannot learn from either source what these limits mean or what happens when they are omitted.
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 identifies the specific resource (Pi-hole's network table) and enumerates its columns (MAC, vendor, IPs, hostnames, first/last seen, query count), so an agent knows this returns discovered network devices. The verb 'list' comes from the tool name rather than the text, and it does not name a sibling (e.g. list_dhcp_leases) for contrast.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_dhcp_leases or get_top_clients. The agent must infer that this is the device-inventory tool purely from the name and field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.