omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get site uplink topology tree

get_topology

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build the site's Gateway -> Switch(port) -> AP/Switch uplink tree with device counts.

Instructions

Build the site's Gateway -> Switch(port) -> AP/Switch uplink tree with device counts.

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_topology"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No
`includeClients`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`roots`	Yes
`counts`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`unattachedDevices`	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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds the hierarchical tree shape and the inclusion of device counts, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about whether missing/disconnected devices appear, how deep the tree goes, or how includeClients changes the result.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the topology notation makes the hierarchy immediately legible. It is efficient, though it may be too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 needn't be explained. What remains missing is parameter semantics and usage context for a 2-param tool, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of `site` and `includeClients` before calling.

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 two parameters. The description does not explain what `site` accepts (name vs. id) or what `includeClients=true` adds to the tree, which is the single most consequential flag here. With zero coverage the description must compensate and it does not.

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 and resource: "Build the site's Gateway -> Switch(port) -> AP/Switch uplink tree with device counts." The topology shape and payload (device counts) are concrete, so an agent knows what output to expect. It doesn't differentiate from siblings such as get_site_info or get_switch_ports, but the purpose itself 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are named. The agent must infer that this is the topology-visualization tool rather than an inventory lister, and nothing tells it when to prefer get_site_info, get_switch_ports, or list_devices instead.

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