fritz-mesh-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fritz_port_forwards

Retrieves active IPv4 port-forwarding rules from a FRITZ!Box mesh, optionally filtered by host, to review which router services are exposed.

Instructions

Active IPv4 port-forwarding rules.

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": "fritz_port_forwards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

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 disclosure burden, yet it only implies a read via the word "Active." It says nothing about permissions, whether inactive rules are excluded, pagination, or how the query behaves with no host given.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: a single fragment that omits the operative verb and any parameter meaning.

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 needn't be described, but the definition still leaves the core action (list vs. get) and the sole parameter's purpose unexplained. For a tool with no annotations, this is not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter "host", and the description never mentions it. An agent has no idea whether host filters rules by target, is required, or is optional (it defaults to null). The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a noun phrase, "Active IPv4 port-forwarding rules," that restates the tool name (fritz_port_forwards) with a small qualifier ("Active", "IPv4"). It never states a verb, so an agent cannot tell whether this lists rules, fetches one rule, or creates a rule, nor how it differs from siblings like fritz_set_upnp or fritz_reserve_ipv4.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 any alternative tool. The description offers nothing to help an agent choose this over fritz_lan_dhcp, fritz_set_upnp, or fritz_reserve_ipv4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.