Skip to main content
Glama
aljopro

tplink-omada-mcp

by aljopro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getApRadios

Retrieve radio status for an access point, including 2.4GHz and 5GHz band configuration, channel, TX power, utilization, and associated client counts. Use listDevices to obtain the AP MAC address.

Instructions

Get radio status for a specific access point: 2.4GHz and 5GHz band config, channel, TX power, channel utilization, and associated client count per radio. Use listDevices to get the apMac.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apMacYesMAC address of the access point (e.g. "AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF"). Use listDevices to find AP MACs.
siteIdNoSite ID to target. If omitted, uses the default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config. Use listSites to discover available site IDs.
customHeadersNoOptional HTTP headers to include in the Omada API request (e.g. {"X-Custom-Header": "value"}). Rarely needed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.15.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits like side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. It only describes the output content without addressing potential impacts or constraints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: first provides a dense, informative overview of the output; second offers a practical prerequisite tip. No superfluous words. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately enumerates key return fields. However, it omits structural details (e.g., whether the response is an object or array) and error scenarios. Slightly incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema descriptions. The note about using listDevices for apMac is helpful but not parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description specifies the exact verb 'Get', the resource 'radio status', and lists the specific data fields (band config, channel, TX power, channel utilization, client count). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on radio status rather than general AP detail or config.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite ('Use listDevices to get the apMac') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getApDetail or getRadiosConfig. No explicit when-not or exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools