Retrieves TP-Link Deco router data with secrets included, such as Wi-Fi passwords and WireGuard keys, for cases where the user specifically needs the hidden value.
Like get_router_data but includes secrets (e.g. Wi-Fi passwords, a WireGuard private key). Only use this when the user specifically needs the secret, and don't write it anywhere without asking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: output contains live credentials and must not be persisted without asking. It does not state read-only semantics, permission requirements, or what the response looks like, which leaves a modest gap for a credential-returning tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the differentiator against the sibling, then the safety constraint. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of structured fields.
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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, and handling caution adequately. The remaining gap is the meaning of 'name' and any hint about returned structure, though the get_router_data sibling likely fills that in.
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 0% and the single 'name' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never clarifies whether 'name' is a router label, a network identifier, or something else, and adds no format or constraint hints to compensate.
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?
States a specific action (retrieve router data) and a precise scope modifier (unredacted, including Wi-Fi passwords and a WireGuard private key). It explicitly anchors against the sibling get_router_data, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit gate: 'Only use this when the user specifically needs the secret.' That is a when-to-use rule plus an implicit when-not (use the redacted sibling otherwise), and it names the alternative surface (get_router_data) in the first clause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.