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

tplink-deco-mcp-server

by roquerodrigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List blocked clients

list_blocked_clients
Read-only

Lists all devices blocked from internet access across the Wi-Fi mesh, returning each blocked client's MAC address, name, and stored category.

Instructions

List the devices that are blocked from the internet across the whole mesh.

Returns each blocked device's MAC, the name and the category stored with the block.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_blocked_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally. The description adds the mesh-wide scope (no per-node filtering) which is genuinely useful, but it does not discuss ordering, result size, or whether nodes with no blocks are included.

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 and action come first, then the returned fields. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 zero-argument read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it. The only omission is any hint about result size or ordering when many devices are blocked across a large mesh.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to supply and that the scope is the entire mesh rather than a selected node.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List the devices that are blocked from the internet') plus a scope qualifier ('across the whole mesh') that separates it from a general client listing. It stops short of naming the sibling (list_clients) or stating the contrast explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want to see currently blocked devices. There is no when-to-use statement, no mention of block_client/unblock_client as the mutation counterparts, and no exclusions.

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