omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Diagnose a WiFi or wired client

diagnose_client

Read-onlyIdempotent

Correlate client signal/link state, connection history, parent AP radio or switch port telemetry, and recent…

Instructions

Correlate client signal/link state, connection history, parent AP radio or switch port telemetry, and recent…

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": {
      "mac": "<mac>"
    },
    "name": "diagnose_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mac`	Yes
`site`	No
`hours`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`nextSteps`	Yes
`recentLogs`	Yes
`roamingSummary`	Yes
`pastConnections`	Yes
`telemetryAvailability`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.0Nov 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / roamingSummary
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / telemetryAvailability
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "client",
-  "pastConnections",
-  "recentLogs",
-  "findings",
-  "nextSteps",
-  "warnings"
-]New value: +[
+  "client",
+  "pastConnections",
+  "recentLogs",
+  "roamingSummary",
+  "telemetryAvailability",
+  "findings",
+  "nextSteps",
+  "warnings"
+]

First observedv1.2.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered by structured data. The description's added value is that the result is a correlation across several telemetry sources rather than a raw object fetch, which is genuinely useful context. It stops short of saying what the correlation produces or any limits on the diagnosis, and is truncated, so it earns only a moderate score.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is verb-first and front-loaded, which is good, but it terminates mid-thought with an ellipsis, meaning the definition is literally incomplete rather than merely terse. There is no structure beyond the initial list, and no complete statement an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but three parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, usage versus siblings is unaddressed, and the description is truncated. For a diagnostic tool that aggregates multiple data sources, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters (mac, site, hours), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and does not. The required mac is implied by 'client' but never stated, site is unmentioned, and the hours default of 24 is only vaguely echoed by the trailing 'recent'. This is a clear gap given zero schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening verb 'Correlate' plus the enumeration of client signal/link state, connection history, and parent AP radio or switch port telemetry conveys that this is a multi-source diagnostic for a single client, and the title narrows it to WiFi or wired clients. However, the text is cut off mid-sentence ('and recent…'), so the full scope of what is correlated is never stated. It is distinguishable from diagnose_wan and get_client in spirit, but the incomplete sentence leaves the purpose only partly defined.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than the obvious siblings such as get_client, list_clients, or diagnose_wan, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the deeper-dive option versus a plain client lookup. Nothing in the description resolves that choice.

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