fritz-mesh-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fritz_set_channel_mode

Set Wi-Fi channel selection to auto or manual, optionally specifying 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels for FRITZ!Box mesh radios.

Instructions

Set channel selection to auto or manual. Manual may include a 2.4 GHz and a 5 GHz channel.

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": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "fritz_set_channel_mode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`channel_5`	No
`channel_24`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 burden for a mutation tool. It discloses that manual mode may include two channels, but it says nothing about side effects such as Wi-Fi disruption, validation behavior, required permissions, or what happens if channel values are omitted or invalid.

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?

The description is two sentences with the operational purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter context.

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?

For a mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits validation rules, side effects, parameter dependencies, and expected behavior on success or failure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps the two optional channel parameters loosely to 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels, but it does not define valid values for mode, channel ranges, or clarify that channel_24 and channel_5 are only relevant in manual mode.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: set channel selection to auto or manual. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling read tools like fritz_get_radio or unrelated setters like fritz_set_transmit_power, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage by explaining that manual mode may include 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channels, which gives some context for choosing manual over auto. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus siblings such as fritz_set_band_steering, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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