router-mcp

by sudip490

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing clients, listing WiFi networks, rebooting, system status, arbitrary commands, modifying WiFi, and WAN info. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use verb_noun (list_devices, reboot_router, run_command, set_wifi) while router_status and wan_info use noun_noun. This is a minor inconsistency, but the pattern is still predictable overall.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for a router management server. Each tool covers a fundamental operation, neither too few nor too many.
Completeness3/5
Covers core router operations (clients, WiFi, reboot, status, WAN), but lacks a create_wifi tool for adding new networks. The run_command provides a fallback, but its restriction and danger limit completeness.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds specific behavioral detail beyond annotations: connection drop and unreachable duration (~1-2 min). Annotations give destructiveHint=true, but description adds the temporal impact.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant information. Every word 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the effect and duration. Lacks details on post-reboot state but sufficient for basic usage.
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% for the single parameter 'confirm'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Reboot' and the resource 'router'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_devices or router_status by focusing on a specific disruptive operation.
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?
Implied usage: the description notes the effect (connection drop, unreachable for 1-2 min), which signals it's for reboots. But no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by specifying the exact attributes returned. No contradictory or missing behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence, clear and to the point. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but efficient for the content.
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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. Could add real-time vs cached detail, but sufficient given sibling context.
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?
No parameters to document, so baseline is 4. Description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since schema coverage is 100% (no params).
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Get router identity and health') and lists specific fields (model, firmware, hostname, uptime, load average, memory). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_devices (device list) and wan_info (WAN status) by focusing on the router itself.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose implies it's for general router status, but no exclusion or when-not-to-use is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructive and open-world nature, but the description adds critical detail: 'Changes are committed and the radios reloaded.' This reveals a reload side effect beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with 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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines the action and identifier; the second explains partial updates and commitment behavior. Every part 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?
The description explains what the tool does, how to identify the network, partial update capability, and behavior (commit/reload). No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. Minor omission: no mention of error cases or confirmation, but overall complete enough.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already explains each field. The description only reiterates that any subset may be supplied, which adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool modifies an existing wireless network, specifies the identifier source (list_wifi_networks), and allows partial updates. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on listing, rebooting, or status checks.
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?
The description explicitly ties usage to an ID from list_wifi_networks, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternative approaches for wifi changes (though no alternatives exist among siblings). The guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate. It adds useful content about what is listed (DHCP leases, wireless associations) and the fields returned, which enhances transparency beyond 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part ('List clients known to the router', parenthetical explanation, field list) is necessary and contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and return values (MAC, IP, hostname, signal, interface). It is complete for a read-only list operation.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (implicitly, as there are no properties). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description needs no parameter information.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'clients known to the router', specifying the data fields (MAC, IP, hostname, signal, interface). It distinguishes from siblings like list_wifi_networks which lists networks, not clients.
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?
The description implies usage for seeing connected devices but does not explicitly mention when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like list_wifi_networks or router_status. No exclusionary guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the returned fields (up state, protocol, IP, gateway, uptime). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the non-destructive, read-only behavior is clear. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence of 13 words, efficiently conveying all essential information. No redundant or unnecessary content. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's trivial complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose and returned data. No additional information is needed for correct usage.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter-level detail. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no missing parameter information.
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 clearly states the specific function: retrieving upstream/WAN connection details, and lists the exact data fields (up state, protocol, public IP, gateway, uptime). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'router_status' or 'list_devices'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. However, the tool's simplicity and zero parameters make its usage obvious—it is for retrieving WAN info. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read behavior and dynamic results. The description adds value by detailing the output fields, which is sufficient for this simple tool without need for additional caveats.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and key fields, with zero redundancy or wasted words. 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?
For a read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists the returned fields and hints at cross-tool usage. It could mention possible empty results or error scenarios, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is adequate.
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 has no parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description does not add parameter information, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no further semantic clarification is needed.
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 clearly states the tool lists configured wireless networks and specifies the exact fields returned: id, enabled state, channel, band, and encryption. It also notes the id's integration with set_wifi, providing a concrete use case.
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?
The description explicitly mentions using the id with set_wifi, which serves as a guideline for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools like set_wifi and reboot_router helps differentiate, and the advice is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds that it is 'powerful and dangerous' and requires operator-granted exec permission, enhancing transparency without contradiction.
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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, zero redundancy, and all necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the critical permission constraint, making it fully adequate for correct agent use.
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?
The lone parameter 'command' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.
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 clearly states it runs an arbitrary shell command on the router and returns output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_devices or reboot_router.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states it is powerful and dangerous, only enabled when exec permission is granted, guiding agents to use cautiously and only when authorized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ROUTER-MCP-NPM-PACKAGE MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sudip490/ROUTER-MCP-NPM-PACKAGE/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sudip490/ROUTER-MCP-NPM-PACKAGE)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ROUTER-MCP-NPM-PACKAGE MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sudip490/ROUTER-MCP-NPM-PACKAGE/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sudip490/ROUTER-MCP-NPM-PACKAGE)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sudip490/ROUTER-MCP-NPM-PACKAGE'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server