fios-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_port_forwarding_enabled

Idempotent

Enable or disable an existing port forward on a Verizon Fios router without deleting it; runs as a two-phase, confirm-then-verify change.

Instructions

Enable or disable a port forward without deleting it. Two-phase.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "set_port_forwarding_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`enabled`	Yes
`expected_etag`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'without deleting it,' which reinforces state preservation, but 'Two-phase' is unexplained and leaves the confirmation/etag behavior opaque.

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?

The description is very short and front-loads the action, which is good. However, the fragment 'Two-phase.' is ambiguous and does not earn its place without explaining what the phases are or which parameters they involve.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has four parameters, zero schema description coverage, and a confirmation/etag workflow that is not explained. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the invocation workflow remains under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. 'Enable or disable' loosely maps to 'enabled' and the port forward context maps to 'name,' while 'confirm' and 'expected_etag' are entirely unexplained.

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 (enable/disable) and resource (port forward) and distinguishes itself from delete_port_forwarding by saying 'without deleting it.' The purpose is clear, though the trailing 'Two-phase' is cryptic and does not add clarity.

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?

Implies usage by contrasting with deletion: use this instead of deleting a port forward when only its enabled state needs to change. It does not explain when to use this versus add/delete, nor does it clarify the intended two-phase workflow.

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