Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tplink-deco-mcp-server

tplink-deco-mcp-server

by roquerodrigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Block client

block_client
Idempotent

Block a device's internet access across every Deco mesh unit while keeping it connected to the local network. Specify the MAC address to enforce the block.

Instructions

Block a device from the internet on every Deco unit; it stays on the local network.

name and client_type default to what list_clients shows for the device, so they are only needed for a device the mesh does not list.

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": {
      "mac": "<mac>"
    },
    "name": "block_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
macYesMAC address of the device, `AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF` or `AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF`.
nameNoLabel for the block. Omit to reuse the name the mesh already shows for the device.
client_typeNoDevice category stored with the block. Omit to reuse the one the mesh already shows.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds behavior beyond that: the block is mesh-wide across all Deco units, and the device retains local-network connectivity. It doesn't say whether existing blocks are overwritten or how to reverse it beyond the sibling name, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, the scope/behavior fact front-loaded ahead of the parameter note about defaults. No restatement of the tool name and nothing wasted.

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?

With annotations covering safety and idempotency, an output schema present, and full schema coverage, the description covers what an agent needs: effect, scope, and parameter defaults. Minor gaps remain — no mention of what happens when the MAC isn't currently known to the mesh, or how to reverse the block.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining the intent behind the optional fields — they default to what list_clients reports and are only needed for devices the mesh doesn't know about. That is a usage rule the per-field schema text only hints at.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (block a device) plus the crucial scope qualifier: the block applies on every Deco unit while local-network access is preserved. That scope statement alone separates it from siblings like update_client or remove_client, and the inverse operation (unblock_client) is implicitly clear from the verb.

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?

It clearly states the effect of the call and when the optional parameters matter ('only needed for a device the mesh does not list'), and points at list_clients as the source of defaults. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., unblock_client to reverse), so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools