tplink-omada-mcp

searchDevices

Search all accessible Omada sites for devices using a search key, returning a list of matching devices for monitoring and management.

Instructions

Search for devices globally across all sites the user has access to. Returns devices matching the search key.

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": {
      "searchKey": "<searchKey>"
    },
    "name": "searchDevices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`searchKey`	Yes
`customHeaders`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the tool searches and returns matching devices, omitting details like search algorithm, case sensitivity, pagination, result limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a global search tool.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, using two efficient sentences. However, the brevity sacrifices critical details needed for proper tool invocation.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not cover output format, error handling, or usage constraints, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It only mentions 'search key' without specifying what constitutes a valid key (e.g., name, MAC, partial match). The 'customHeaders' parameter is completely unexplained.

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 the tool searches for devices globally across all sites, which is a distinct purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like listDevices, which could also list devices across sites.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listDevices or getDevice. No when-not-to or context scenarios are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server