tplink-omada-mcp

getSitesApsBridge

Retrieve the point-to-point bridge configuration for a specific access point by its MAC address, using the Omada controller to return current P2P bridge settings.

Instructions

Get P2P bridge config for an AP.

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": {
      "apMac": "<apMac>"
    },
    "name": "getSitesApsBridge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apMac`	Yes	MAC address of the access point (e.g. "AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF"). Use listDevices to find AP MACs.
`siteId`	No	Site ID to target. If omitted, uses the default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config. Use listSites to discover available site IDs.
`customHeaders`	No	Optional 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.

First observedv0.15.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with the action. Could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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?

No output schema, no annotations. The description fails to explain what P2P bridge config entails, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites beyond parameter hints.

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% with documented parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'Get P2P bridge config for an AP,' specifying a distinct config type among many sibling AP config tools. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or relation to siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getApGeneralConfig). The description lacks any usage context or exclusionary hints.

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

Deploy Server