Skip to main content
Glama
aljopro

tplink-omada-mcp

by aljopro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getApUplinkConfig

Retrieve an access point's uplink configuration to see wired or wireless mesh mode, preferred uplink, and failover settings, clarifying mesh topology and wired assignments.

Instructions

Get the uplink configuration for an access point. Returns uplink mode (wired/wireless mesh), preferred uplink settings, and failover configuration. Useful for understanding mesh topology and wired uplink assignments.

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and describes the return information. It does not disclose permissions or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and return data. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the key return fields. Parameters are well-documented in the schema. For a simple get operation, the description is complete enough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., apMac pattern and examples).

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'uplink configuration for an access point'. It lists the three types of data returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like general config, radios, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The context of 'uplink configuration' implies its scope, but no direct comparison with sibling tools is given.

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