Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omada-mcp

omada-mcp

by dfla-me
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List alert log

list_logs
Read-only

Retrieve site alert logs from the past 24 hours, with options to filter by module or resolved status.

Instructions

Site alert log within a time window. Defaults to the last 24 hours. Optionally filter by module or resolved/unresolved.

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_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdNo
hoursAgoNoLook-back window in hours (1-168, default 24).
moduleNo
resolvedNoIf set, only show resolved (true) or unresolved (false) alerts.
pageSizeNo
pageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by noting the default time window and filter options. However, it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or authentication beyond what annotations imply.

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 core purpose and key options. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

For a list tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description adequately covers input defaults and filters. It does not describe output format, but this is acceptable given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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?

Only 2 of 6 parameters have schema descriptions (33% coverage). The description adds meaning for 'module' and 'resolved' parameters but omits 'siteId', 'pageSize', and 'page'. This partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 it lists site alert logs with a time window, defaults, and optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_clients, list_devices, list_events, etc., which operate on different entities.

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 states defaults and optional filters, providing clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, the name and description make its purpose unambiguous.

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