omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get IPS/IDS, WIDS & rogue AP status

get_security_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize IPS/IDS enablement, recent threat events, attack defense limits, WIDS/WIPS, and rogue AP detections…

Instructions

Summarize IPS/IDS enablement, recent threat events, attack defense limits, WIDS/WIPS, and rogue AP detections…

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": "get_security_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No
`hours`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ips`	Yes
`counts`	Yes
`rogueAps`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`threatAlerts`	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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope of content summarized and says nothing about how the window is bounded, whether absent site means all sites, or how volume is capped. It does not contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and has no filler, which is good. However it trails off with an ellipsis, signaling a truncated or incomplete definition rather than a deliberately concise one.

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 three parameters sit at 0% coverage with no description-level compensation and no scoping rules. For a multi-domain security summary with optional site scoping and a volume limit, this leaves the agent guessing on the calls it matters most for.

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 must carry parameter meaning, but it never mentions site, hours, or limit. The phrase 'recent threat events' faintly implies a time window, yet the default of 24 hours, the zero lower bound, and the 1-200 cap on limit are entirely 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 verb 'Summarize' is paired with a concrete list of covered resources (IPS/IDS enablement, threat events, attack defense limits, WIDS/WIPS, rogue AP detections), so the agent knows this is a security-posture summary rather than a raw event list. It does not name or distinguish itself from nearby read tools such as get_rf_scan or list_logs, leaving sibling differentiation to the title.

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 call this versus alternatives (e.g. get_rf_scan for radio-level detail or list_logs for raw events), and no prerequisite or exclusion is given. Usage is only inferable from the word 'Summarize' plus the title.

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