omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get AP RF scan results

get_rf_scan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the latest cached RF scan status/neighbor results (empty channels list if no scan was triggered) and…

Instructions

Read the latest cached RF scan status/neighbor results (empty channels list if no scan was triggered) and…

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_rf_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mac`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`channels`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`supportRfScan`	Yes
`radioUtilization`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that: results come from a cache (potentially stale) and an empty channels list signals no scan was triggered — a meaningful non-obvious behavior. The truncated ending prevents it from going further.

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?

The single sentence is dense and front-loaded with the key fact (cached results). The only structural defect is that it terminates mid-clause on "and…", leaving the reader without the promised second half.

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 two parameters are completely undocumented across both schema and description, and the description itself is truncated, so an agent lacks the information needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters, so the description, not the schema, must explain what mac and site mean. It mentions neither, leaving the agent to infer that mac identifies the AP. With no compensating detail, this falls below the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Read the latest cached RF scan status/neighbor results") and adds a useful scope detail about empty channel lists. However, the sentence is cut off mid-thought ("and…"), so the full purpose is never stated, and it does not distinguish itself against siblings like get_ap_radios, which likely covers adjacent radio data.

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?

The only usage-adjacent statement is that the result is cached and channels will be empty if no scan was triggered. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_ap_radios or other device diagnostics, no prerequisites, and no mention of how a scan gets triggered in the first place.

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