omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get device

get_device

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one device by MAC address or device name.

Instructions

Get one device by MAC address or device name.

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_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes
`mac`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`uptime`	Yes
`firmware`	Yes
`clientCount`	Yes
`needUpgrade`	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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say how a miss is reported, whether lookup is case-insensitive, or what the open-world behavior means in practice. It does introduce ambiguity, claiming lookup supports 'device name' while the schema only exposes a required 'mac' field.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is the right shape for a simple getter. It is arguably too terse given the 0% schema coverage, but nothing in the sentence itself is wasted.

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 explained, but the definition leaves the 'site' scoping parameter undocumented and the accepted identifier format ambiguous. For a lookup tool whose schema documents nothing, one sentence is not enough to call it reliably.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters. It clarifies the 'mac' field loosely by saying a device name is also acceptable, but that leaves unclear whether the name goes into the 'mac' field or whether a separate identifier exists, and the 'site' parameter is never mentioned at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one device') and the cardinality ('one'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_devices. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the single-record scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'one device' signals a single-record lookup as opposed to a bulk list, which is enough to route an agent away from list_devices. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note on what to do when the device is not found, and no mention of when the optional 'site' should be supplied.

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