Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omada-mcp

omada-mcp

by dfla-me
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List clients

list_clients
Read-only

List all connected wired and wireless clients at a site, including SSID, AP, band, channel, RSSI, Tx/Rx rate, and total traffic. Also returns site summary counts.

Instructions

List connected clients (wired + wireless) at a site, with SSID, AP, band, channel, RSSI, Tx/Rx rate and total traffic. Also returns site summary counts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdNoOverride the default site.
pageSizeNoMax rows per page (1-1000, default 100).
pageNoPage number (default 1).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (open-ended result set). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the returned fields (SSID, AP, etc.) and the inclusion of site summary counts. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a paginated list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It enumerates the returned data fields (SSID, AP, band, etc.) and mentions the site summary counts, leaving no significant gaps. Annotations also provide safety and open-world 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already described (siteId, pageSize, page). The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool lists connected clients (wired + wireless) at a site, specifying the action ('list') and the resource ('clients'). It differentiates from siblings like 'get_client' which retrieves a single client, and 'list_devices' which lists devices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by stating 'at a site', informing the agent that site context is needed. It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear for a list endpoint.

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