omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get site summary

get_site_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Site summary: name, id, WAN/LAN/WLAN state, device and client counts, controller version.

Instructions

Site summary: name, id, WAN/LAN/WLAN state, device and client counts, controller version.

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_site_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`siteUrl`	Yes
`clientCount`	Yes
`deviceCount`	Yes
`lanConnected`	Yes
`sitesVisible`	Yes
`wanConnected`	Yes
`wlanConnected`	Yes
`wifiClientCount`	Yes
`wiredClientCount`	Yes
`controllerVersion`	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

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 profile is fully covered and the description adds the returned field inventory (states, counts, controller version). What it does not disclose is the behavior of the optional 'site' parameter — crucially, what site is summarized when it is omitted. A mutation-free read tool scores a 3 here given the annotation coverage.

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 fragment with zero filler; every listed item is meaningful content about what comes back. It reads as a label rather than guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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 the enumerated return fields are redundant-but-harmless rather than necessary, and the real gap — default/optional behavior of 'site' — is unaddressed. For a simple read tool with rich annotations this is adequate but not complete.

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% and the single parameter 'site' is not required, so the description needed to explain whether it accepts a name or an ID and what the default is. Instead the description is entirely about return values, leaving the one parameter's semantics undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Site summary') and enumerates the fields it aggregates (name, id, WAN/LAN/WLAN state, counts, controller version), so the agent knows this is an aggregate snapshot rather than a raw list. No differentiation from siblings such as get_wan_status or get_device, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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 the many sibling getters (get_wan_status, get_device, get_topology, list_sites). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'site summary', with no prerequisites or exclusions offered.

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