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

tplink-deco-mcp-server

by roquerodrigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Update client

update_client
Idempotent

Rename a connected Deco device and optionally change its category; a name is always required because the router only applies edits that include one.

Instructions

Rename a device and optionally change its category in the Deco app.

The router only applies an edit that carries a name, so name is always required.

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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
macYesMAC address of the device, `AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF` or `AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF`.
nameYesName to show in the Deco app. Pass the current one to change only `client_type`.
client_typeNoNew device category, using the values `list_clients` returns such as `Mobile`, `Television`, `pc`. Omit to keep the current one.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context — the router silently ignores edits that don't carry a name, so name is effectively mandatory — which is exactly the kind of quirk an agent cannot get from annotations.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the critical constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the agent has what it needs to call this correctly; the description supplies the one key behavioral caveat. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens on an unknown MAC or an invalid category value.

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 description coverage is 100%, so mac, name, and client_type are already well documented, including the 'pass the current one' trick for changing only client_type. The description's note that name is always required largely restates the schema's required list, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pair ('Rename a device and optionally change its category'), which is clearly distinct from siblings such as block_client, remove_client, or list_clients. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating an explicit boundary, but the operation 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for renaming or recategorizing an existing client. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives for other kinds of client edits.

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