omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get client

get_client

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one client by MAC address, hostname or IP address.

Instructions

Get one client by MAC address, hostname or IP address.

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": "get_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes
`mac`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`ssid`	Yes
`vlan`	Yes
`guest`	Yes
`active`	Yes
`apName`	Yes
`signal`	Yes
`upload`	Yes
`download`	Yes
`duration`	Yes
`hostName`	Yes
`lastSeen`	Yes
`wireless`	Yes
`networkName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0Nov 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / site
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv1.2.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavior beyond them — no statement about lookup failure when no client matches, no note on whether the lookup is site-scoped, and no hint about the cost of the open-world query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifying the resource, the cardinality, and the accepted identifier forms. There is no boilerplate or wasted wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the tool itself is simple. Still, the undocumented "site" parameter and the silence on not-found behavior and site scoping leave gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does add real meaning for the identifier by saying MAC, hostname, or IP are acceptable — useful given the parameter is named "mac" — but the second parameter, "site", is never mentioned, leaving its scoping role undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get one client") and the word "one" implicitly separates it from list-style siblings such as list_clients. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions; the agent must infer that a single-client lookup is preferred over list_clients or diagnose_client. Nothing says what to do if the client is unknown or when the diagnostic tool would be the better choice.

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