block_clientBlocks a device by MAC address on Keenetic routers, registering unknown devices as 'Blocked Device' first. Restore access later by unblocking the MAC.
Block a device by MAC address. An unregistered device is registered as 'Blocked Device' first. Undo with unblock_client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | Yes | MAC address to block, e.g. aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=true, so safety is largely covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by noting that an unregistered device is first registered as 'Blocked Device' and that unblock_client reverses the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the side effect and undo path. No sentence is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, unregistered-device side effect, and reversal. It could clarify exactly what blocking does to an already-connected client, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the mac parameter already includes a format example. The description only restates that blocking is by MAC address, adding no syntax or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: block a device by MAC address. It clearly distinguishes the action from its sibling unblock_client and implies a different role than get_clients or update_client.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly names unblock_client as the undo path and explains the special case for unregistered devices. It stops short of broader when-to-use/when-not guidance versus update_client or register_client, so it is clear but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.