Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/WYRE-AI/msp-claude-pluginsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/eol-report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/eol-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/eol-report/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/eol-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/wyre-ai/msp-claude-plugins/eol-report.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00028 | $0.00931 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00465 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
eol-report scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
EOL Report
Cross-vendor end-of-life/end-of-support risk report: devices, OS versions, and firmware approaching or past EOL/EOS, prioritized by criticality, pulled from whatever RMM platforms the org has connected through the gateway.
Prerequisites
- WYRE MCP Gateway connected (
conduit) with at least one RMM connector. Without an RMM, there is no device/OS inventory to assess. - Optional: IT Glue or Hudu, used for device-criticality context where the RMM itself doesn't tag device role. Skipped with an explicit note if not connected.
Steps
-
Discover available tools. Call
conduit__search_toolsto determine which RMM connector(s) are live and their actual tool names. Never assume a specific vendor's tool surface. If a documentation platform is also connected, discover it too for criticality context. -
Resolve scope. If
clientwas provided, scope the device pull to that client/org unit/site. If omitted, run portfolio-wide. -
Pull device, OS, and firmware inventory per the
eol-eos-flaggingskill: make, model, OS version, firmware version where exposed. -
Classify each device against general EOL/EOS knowledge: OS past EOS, OS approaching EOS (default 6-month lookahead), hardware/firmware past-or-approaching EOL, no known near-term risk, or insufficient version data. Attach a verification caveat to every cited date — general knowledge of EOL/EOS timing can drift from current vendor lifecycle pages.
-
Resolve criticality per device from RMM role/tags or connected documentation platform's asset classification. Mark devices with no resolvable signal as unclassified rather than defaulting to low.
-
Return the report, ranked: high-criticality past-EOS/EOL first, then high-criticality approaching, then medium, then low, with unclassified and insufficient-data buckets surfaced explicitly rather than dropped.
Arguments
client(optional) — Client/org name to scope the report to. Omit for a portfolio-wide report across every client visible through the connected RMM(s).
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 120 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 6840c9e92b90
eol-report is a command published in the GitHub repository WYRE-AI/msp-claude-plugins (45 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 931 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
device-info
A device-scanning command that identifies the connected chip and its VID:PID hardware identifiers. It also provides suggestions for the driver needed to use the device.
stm32-setup
Set up STM32 MCP documentation server - installs dependencies and configures your project.
get-organization-inventory-devices
Call the get-organization-inventory-devices tool from meraki-dashboard-api.
arduino-build
Compile an Arduino sketch for a target board.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.