Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ax11000-mcp

ax11000-mcp

by taroru5358
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_wifi

Retrieve Wi-Fi settings for a specified band on a TP-Link router. Secrets stay masked by default; set reveal_secrets to true to expose them.

Instructions

指定バンドのWi-Fi設定。band: 2g/5g/6g/guest_2g/... 秘密値は既定マスク。

例: get_wifi(band="5g"), get_wifi(band="guest_2g", reveal_secrets=True)

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": "get_wifi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandNo5g
reveal_secretsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important behavior — secret values are masked by default and reveal_secrets=True unmasks them — but says nothing about auth requirements, read-only safety, or what the response contains. Useful but partial disclosure.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then band values, then the masking default, then two concrete examples. No filler sentences; every clause carries information.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema getter, the description covers the key unknowns (band vocabulary, secret masking). Only auth/permission context and a hint at the returned settings shape are missing, which are minor given no output schema exists.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there are no enums in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does: it enumerates band values (2g/5g/6g/guest_2g/...) and explains reveal_secrets' masking default. This is meaningful semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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+resource+scope: retrieves Wi-Fi settings for a given band. An agent can distinguish it from get_dhcp_leases, get_ipv4_status and other getters. It never distinguishes itself from set_wifi, but the 'get' framing makes the read intent clear.

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 via examples (get_wifi(band="5g")) rather than stated: there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of set_wifi as the mutating counterpart. The examples do at least show a canonical invocation and a variant with reveal_secrets.

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