wg-easy-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get WireGuard client configuration

get_client_config

Read-only

Retrieve the WireGuard .conf file for a specific client using its numeric ID. Use it to set up a device or inspect client settings; treat the returned private key as sensitive.

Instructions

Get the WireGuard configuration file (wg .conf format) for a client. SENSITIVE: the output contains the client private key — treat it as a secret and do not repeat it unnecessarily.

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>"
    },
    "name": "get_client_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`clientId`	Yes	Numeric ID of the client (see list_clients)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.2Aug 11, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / clientId / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds critical security context: the output contains the client private key and should be treated as secret. It also discloses the output format (wg .conf), going beyond the structured annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and a concise security warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a single parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema. The description explains the return format ('wg .conf') and adds the vital sensitivity caveat, covering all essential context for correct use.

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 fully describes clientId with 'Numeric ID of the client (see list_clients)', so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('WireGuard configuration file (wg .conf format)') clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_client_qrcode or get_client. It states exactly what is returned.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention get_client_qrcode, generate_one_time_link, or other related tools, so an agent receives no help choosing among them beyond the tool's name.

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

Deploy Server