mcp-pihole

search_domains

Check if a domain is blocked and identify which list caused the block. Troubleshoot why a domain is blocked or allowed by searching gravity, antigravity, deny/allow, and regex lists.

Instructions

Check if a domain is blocked and by which list.

Searches gravity, antigravity, exact deny/allow, and regex deny/allow lists. Useful for troubleshooting why a domain is blocked or allowed.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "search_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions that it searches gravity, antigravity, exact deny/allow, and regex deny/allow lists, which is good behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects, and no annotations are provided to fill this 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 three sentences, all essential and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and usage context. It lacks details about return values, but the simplicity of the tool makes it reasonably complete.

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 sole parameter 'domain' is described in the context of checking if a domain is blocked, which adds meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Domain' title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by implying the parameter's role, though it could be more explicit.

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 'Check' and identifies the resource 'domain'. It clearly states the tool's function: determining if a domain is blocked and identifying the blocking list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_blocking_status' which likely returns a status, but 'search_domains' searches multiple lists.

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 explicitly says 'Useful for troubleshooting why a domain is blocked or allowed', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would earn a 5.

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