mcp-pihole

update_list

Update a blocklist's enabled status or comment. Only provided fields are changed; run update_gravity after changes.

Instructions

Update a blocklist's enabled status or comment.

address: exact URL of the blocklist to update. enabled: set True to enable, False to disable. comment: update the list's description.

Only provided fields are changed. After changes, run update_gravity.

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": "update_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that changes are partial and requires a post-step, but omits details on permissions, destructive nature, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Concise, uses bullet points for parameters, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 3-param update tool with no output schema, description covers parameter meanings and a necessary post-step. Lacks return value info or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains each parameter: address (exact URL), enabled (boolean), comment (update description). Adds meaning beyond schema titles, compensating for low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states verb (update) and resource (blocklist), lists specific fields (enabled status, comment), and identifies the address parameter as the exact URL, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_list or remove_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?

Provides guidance that only provided fields are changed and instructs to run update_gravity after changes, giving context for use. Does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare to alternatives.

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