fios-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

unblock_device

Idempotent

Restore network access to a device previously blocked on a Fios router. Previews the change first, then confirms to unblock the device by MAC address.

Instructions

Unblock a previously blocked device. 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": {
      "mac": "<mac>"
    },
    "name": "unblock_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mac`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds only 'Two-phase,' which hints at a confirmation or etag workflow but does not explain the phases, side effects, or why the call is two-phase.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence, 'Two-phase,' is cryptic rather than informative. It is concise to the point of under-specification.

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 is a mutation with a required device identifier, a confirmation flag, and an etag parameter, and the description explains none of that workflow. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the calling behavior remains unclear.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There are three parameters and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions `mac`, `confirm`, or `expected_etag`, so it provides no meaning beyond the bare schema and leaves the required device identifier and two-phase controls undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Unblock a previously blocked device.' That is clear enough to distinguish it from most router-management siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast it with `block_device` or `list_blocked_devices`.

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?

The phrase 'previously blocked' implies a prerequisite state, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of `block_device` or how to inspect blocked devices first. The agent is left to infer the workflow entirely.

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