fios-mcp

by vehoelite

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

router_status

Read-only

Fetch the current router model, firmware, WAN address and DNS, and LAN address to verify network configuration.

Instructions

Model, firmware, WAN address and DNS in use, LAN address.

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": "router_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond a field list — no note on whether it hits the device live, whether credentials/mode matter, or how it relates to the other read tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Eight words is compact, but it is a telegraphic fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence, and the terseness costs clarity instead of buying it. It is under-specified rather than efficiently worded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero params the input side is trivially complete. What is missing is the routing context against a large set of overlapping read tools, which the description does not provide.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and nothing is missing on the input side.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a bare noun-phrase list ('Model, firmware, WAN address and DNS in use, LAN address') with no verb and no statement that it reads router status. It conveys the subject matter but overlaps heavily with siblings like router_firmware, get_dns_settings, and get_lan_settings without distinguishing itself from them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance at all on when to call this versus the overlapping siblings (router_firmware, get_lan_settings, get_dns_settings) or router_diagnostics. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.