mcp-pihole

add_list

Add a blocklist to Pi-hole by providing its URL, with optional comment and enabled status. Run update_gravity after to apply changes.

Instructions

Add a blocklist by URL.

address: URL of the blocklist (e.g., https://example.com/hosts.txt). comment: optional description. enabled: whether the list is active (default True).

After adding, run update_gravity to apply changes.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "add_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes
`comment`	No
`enabled`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the 'enabled' parameter's default but does not disclose side effects (e.g., failure behavior for invalid URLs), rate limits, or idempotency. The need for update_gravity is mentioned but overall transparency is minimal.

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 concise: two sentences plus parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently includes necessary details. No extraneous content, though the parameter section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 simple creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameters and the required follow-up action. However, it lacks information about return values or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to all three parameters: address (with example URL), comment (optional), and enabled (default value). This provides essential context beyond the schema's minimal types.

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 'Add a blocklist by URL,' specifying the verb (add) and resource (blocklist). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_domain' which adds a domain, not a list.

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 includes the critical next step: 'After adding, run update_gravity to apply changes.' It implicitly differentiates from other list operations (remove_list, update_list) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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