OpenWRT SSH MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions in the OpenWRT domain. For example, opkg tools handle package management, Thread tools manage Thread networking, and system tools cover firewall, DHCP, WiFi, etc., with no overlapping functionality. The general execute_command tool is explicitly reserved for commands not covered by specialized tools, preventing confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'openwrt_' (e.g., openwrt_get_firewall_rules, openwrt_opkg_install, openwrt_thread_create_network). This uniform naming convention makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in style or structure.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for the comprehensive scope of OpenWRT router management, covering system info, networking, package management, and Thread networking. It avoids bloat by focusing on core operations, though it could be streamlined by merging some related tools without losing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete coverage for OpenWRT management, including CRUD operations for packages (install, remove, list), system monitoring (info, firewall, WiFi, DHCP), network configuration (restart interface, read config), and Thread networking lifecycle (create, enable, get info). No obvious gaps exist; agents can perform end-to-end tasks without dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., version, dependencies, size). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how results are structured, or any behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but missing structured output details, this leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'package_name' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific package'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openwrt_opkg_list_installed' or 'openwrt_opkg_list_available', which reduces specificity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for package selection, or how it differs from other opkg-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('install') but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., system changes, dependencies installation), permissions required, error conditions (e.g., package not found), or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('install a package'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a package installation tool (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'package_name' fully documented in the schema (including an example). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('install') and resource ('a package'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'opkg_remove' (uninstall) and 'opkg_list_installed' (list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'opkg_update' (update packages) or 'opkg_info' (get package info), which are related but distinct operations.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing 'opkg_update' first for fresh package lists), when not to use it (e.g., for already installed packages), or comparisons to siblings like 'opkg_info' for checking package details before installation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether removal requires admin privileges, if it's destructive (implied but not explicit), what happens to dependencies, error conditions, or system impact. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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 destructive package removal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'remove' entails (uninstall? purge?), potential system effects, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents the single 'package_name' parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a package using opkg'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openwrt_opkg_install' or 'openwrt_opkg_info' beyond the obvious difference in action verbs.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., package must be installed), consequences, or when to choose removal over other package management operations available in sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states the action ('Restart') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires elevated permissions, if it causes network downtime, how long it takes, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of restarting a network interface (a mutation operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'interface' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by providing examples ('e.g., wan, lan, wlan0'), but doesn't offer additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Restart') and resource ('a network interface'), making the purpose evident. It provides examples of interface names ('wan, lan, wlan0'), which helps distinguish it from general system restart tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like those for Thread network operations.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access), when not to use it (e.g., during critical operations), or how it compares to sibling tools like 'openwrt_execute_command' for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., format of status data), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that retrieves system status, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for zero parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('WiFi status'), including what information it retrieves ('connected clients and signal strength'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'openwrt_get_system_info' by focusing specifically on WiFi. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'openwrt_get_firewall_rules', though the specificity is sufficient for clarity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for real-time monitoring or configuration checks. With many sibling tools available, this lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states 'Get current firewall rules' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or if it returns live data versus cached information. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context. For a read operation, this is acceptable but leaves gaps in understanding the full behavior.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details beyond the schema, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current firewall rules (iptables)', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openwrt_read_config' which might also retrieve configuration data, though the focus on firewall rules is distinct.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for real-time status versus configuration files, or how it compares to 'openwrt_read_config' for firewall-related data. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists DHCP leases but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with network configuration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a network tool that could have implications like listing active devices, more completeness would be beneficial.
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 has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for no parameters. It efficiently focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DHCP leases'), specifying what information is retrieved (connected devices with IP/MAC addresses). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openwrt_get_system_info' which might also provide network-related information, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'openwrt_get_system_info' or 'openwrt_test_connection' that might offer overlapping network insights.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose aspects like read-only nature (implied but not explicit), potential performance impact, output format, or error conditions, which are important for a tool interacting with a router.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return format or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema, which justifies a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all installed packages on the router'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openwrt_opkg_list_available', which lists available rather than installed packages, leaving some room for confusion.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'openwrt_opkg_list_available' for available packages or 'openwrt_opkg_info' for detailed package information. It lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions testing the SSH connection but doesn't specify what 'test' entails (e.g., authentication checks, timeout behavior, or output format). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with siblings, which could be helpful for an agent in a diagnostic context.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, aligning with the schema's completeness, though it could hint at implicit dependencies like SSH configuration.
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 clearly states the action ('Test SSH connection') and target ('to the OpenWRT router'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'openwrt_execute_command', which might also involve SSH connections, leaving room for minor ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for pre-flight checks before executing commands or troubleshooting connectivity. The description implies a diagnostic context but lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'will initialize a new Thread network, configure it, and start it' and 'Returns network credentials including network key and dataset', which covers the core behavior and output. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits that would be helpful for a creation tool.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and action, and another describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the return info more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creating a network with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and output but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, idempotency, or dependencies. For a network creation tool, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of 'network_name' or 'channel' in Thread networks). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a new Thread network') and specifies the resource ('Thread network'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'openwrt_thread_get_info' or 'openwrt_thread_get_dataset'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'openwrt_thread_enable_commissioner'), which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling Thread tools like 'openwrt_thread_get_state' or 'openwrt_thread_enable_commissioner'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool enables the commissioner and mentions the passphrase usage, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, network impact, or error conditions. For a network configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and parameter context without wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a network configuration tool that likely has side effects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens after enabling (e.g., commissioner duration, how to disable), error handling, or return values. For a tool that modifies network state, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one optional parameter documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'provided passphrase' but doesn't explain parameter semantics like passphrase format constraints or security implications. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Enable Thread Commissioner') and the purpose ('to allow new devices to join the network'), with additional context about how devices join. It distinguishes from siblings like 'openwrt_thread_create_network' by focusing on enabling commissioner functionality rather than creating the network itself. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
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?
The description implies usage when new devices need to join the Thread network, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'openwrt_thread_create_network' or prerequisites. It mentions the passphrase parameter context, which hints at usage, but lacks clear when-not-to-use scenarios or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the output is 'limited to 500 packages', which is useful context not inferable from the schema. However, it lacks other important details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., network issues), or response format, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List available packages') and adds a critical constraint ('limited to 500 packages'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key limitation (500-package limit), but for a tool with no structured fields, it could benefit from more context like output format or error conditions. It meets the minimum viable standard with clear gaps.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing any. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the zero-parameter case correctly without unnecessary information.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available packages from repositories'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'openwrt_opkg_list_installed' by specifying 'available' packages. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'openwrt_opkg_info'), keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'openwrt_opkg_list_installed' for installed packages. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action but lacks details on behavioral traits such as network requirements, execution time, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action. It uses parentheses to clarify the command, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a system update tool, this lack of context is inadequate, especially with siblings involving complex operations.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned any implicit parameters or constraints, though not required. Baseline 4 is suitable for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Update package lists') and resource ('from repositories'), using the exact command 'opkg update'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'opkg_install' or 'opkg_list_available' by focusing on refreshing repository data rather than installing or listing packages.
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?
The description implies usage context by referencing 'opkg update', suggesting it should be run before package operations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage somewhat inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, network connectivity needs, or what happens on failure. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose with specific examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action ('Get comprehensive system information'), followed by illustrative details. Perfectly sized for a no-parameter read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what information is retrieved. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't address format of returned data, error conditions, or dependencies. Given the complexity is low (simple system query), it's minimally complete but could benefit from more behavioral context.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what information is retrieved rather than how to configure the request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'comprehensive system information' with concrete examples (board details, uptime, memory usage, CPU load). It distinguishes from siblings like openwrt_get_firewall_rules or openwrt_get_wifi_status by focusing on overall system metrics rather than specific subsystems.
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?
The description implies usage for monitoring system health or diagnostics, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like openwrt_execute_command for custom queries or openwrt_get_wifi_status for network-specific info. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned information. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates specific data points. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving multiple network details), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what information is gathered but does not address behavioral aspects like response format or operational constraints, leaving gaps for the agent to handle.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, as none are needed, aligning with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get comprehensive Thread network information') and lists the detailed resources included (state, channel, PAN ID, network name, IP addresses, neighbors, children). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'openwrt_thread_get_state' by specifying a broader scope of information beyond just state.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving Thread network data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openwrt_thread_get_state' or 'openwrt_thread_get_dataset'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and listed data points.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a read operation, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what format the configuration data is returned in. For a tool that reads system configuration files, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that contains all essential information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the allowed configurations without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is reasonably complete about what the tool does. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally mention what format the configuration data is returned in (e.g., raw text, structured data) and any important constraints or prerequisites for accessing these configuration files.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter that's fully documented in the schema with enum values, the description adds value by explicitly listing the allowed configs in the description text itself. This reinforces the parameter constraints but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read') and resource ('UCI configuration file'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying allowed configs. It differentiates from tools like openwrt_get_system_info or openwrt_get_firewall_rules by focusing on raw configuration file reading rather than processed system information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool by listing the allowed configuration types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when processed data might be preferred over raw config files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (human-readable and hex), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or whether this operation is safe/read-only versus having side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details about return format. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it retrieves and the return format. However, without annotations covering safety/permissions and given the potential sensitivity of network credentials, additional context about access requirements would improve completeness.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('active Thread dataset (network credentials)'), specifying it retrieves network credentials. It distinguishes from siblings like 'openwrt_thread_get_info' by focusing specifically on the dataset/credentials rather than general information.
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?
The description implies usage when needing Thread network credentials, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openwrt_thread_get_info' or 'openwrt_thread_get_state'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying it retrieves current state and listing possible states, but does not mention permissions needed, rate limits, or response format. This is adequate for a read-only tool with zero parameters, but lacks depth in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current OpenThread network state') and adds necessary detail (list of states) without any waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic usage. It explains what the tool does and the possible return states, but could benefit from mentioning response format or error handling. However, for a simple state-retrieval tool, this is largely sufficient.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document. It compensates by clarifying the output semantics (possible states), aligning with the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get current OpenThread network state') and resource ('OpenThread network'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'openwrt_thread_get_info' or 'openwrt_thread_get_dataset' by focusing on state retrieval. It explicitly lists the possible states (disabled, detached, child, router, leader), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving network state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'openwrt_thread_get_info' or 'openwrt_thread_get_dataset'. It provides clear context for state checking, but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, missing full guidance on sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the command validation against a security whitelist (important safety context), the execution nature (implies mutation/action), and the general-purpose nature. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, or output format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first establishes core functionality and security constraints, the second provides crucial usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does and when to use it) is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, security constraints, and usage guidelines. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (output format) and doesn't mention potential risks or limitations of command execution, which would be valuable given the tool's power and potential for destructive operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'command' well-documented in the schema. The description adds only minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the whitelist requirement ('must be in whitelist' vs 'must be in whitelist' in schema). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('execute a validated shell command') and resource ('on the OpenWRT router'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specialized operations like getting firewall rules or system info. It explicitly mentions the security validation aspect, which adds important context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for commands not covered by other specialized tools'), creating a clear boundary with sibling tools that handle specific functions like opkg operations, thread management, or status retrieval. This helps the agent understand this is a general-purpose tool when specialized alternatives aren't available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openwrt_ssh_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jsebgiraldo/openwrt_ssh_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jsebgiraldo/openwrt_ssh_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![openwrt_ssh_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jsebgiraldo/openwrt_ssh_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jsebgiraldo/openwrt_ssh_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jsebgiraldo/openwrt_ssh_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server