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

tplink-deco-mcp-server

by roquerodrigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Unblock client

unblock_client
Idempotent

Restore internet access for a blocked device by specifying its MAC address, removing it from the router's blocklist.

Instructions

Restore internet access for a device on the blocklist.

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": "unblock_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
macYesMAC address of the device, `AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF` or `AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the effect is restoring internet access, but says nothing about what happens if the MAC is unknown or was never blocked, nor about required auth.

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?

A single, tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing wasted, though nothing extra is offered either.

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 one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only minor gap is behavior on an unrecognized or non-blocked MAC, partially implied by idempotentHint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'mac' parameter is fully documented with both accepted formats, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Restore internet access') and the resource condition ('for a device on the blocklist'), which implicitly distinguishes it from block_client. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implied by 'a device on the blocklist' — call it for a currently-blocked device — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to list_blocked_clients for finding candidates.

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