omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List static DHCP reservations

list_dhcp_reservations

Read-onlyIdempotent

List static DHCP reservations configured on the site (works for offline clients too).

Instructions

List static DHCP reservations configured on the site (works for offline clients too).

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": "list_dhcp_reservations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No
`vlan`	No	VLAN ID, netId, or network name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`items`	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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one piece of genuine behavioral context: results are configuration-based and include offline clients, meaning the output is not filtered by live status. It stops short of noting result ordering, pagination, or what happens when the optional site is omitted.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical adding real information rather than filler. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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?

The output schema and annotations carry return format and safety, so the description needn't cover those. However, for a tool with an optional, undescribed site parameter, the definition leaves a meaningful gap: an agent cannot tell whether omitting site means the default site or all sites, which affects correct invocation.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but mentions neither parameter. The vlan parameter is well documented in the schema ("VLAN ID, netId, or network name"), but the site parameter has no description in either place, and since zero parameters are required, the default-site behavior is completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") plus a specific resource ("static DHCP reservations") scoped to "the site," which no sibling tool name covers. The parenthetical "works for offline clients too" implicitly signals it reads configuration rather than live client state, distinguishing it from client-oriented siblings like list_clients or get_client, though it doesn't name an alternative directly.

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 cue is the parenthetical that it works for offline clients, which hints at a scenario but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as list_clients or get_client. An agent must infer when this tool is the right call.

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