omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List IP/port/MAC profile groups

list_ip_groups

Read-onlyIdempotent

List profile groups (IP groups type=0, port groups type=1, MAC groups type=2) with entry counts and ACL…

Instructions

List profile groups (IP groups type=0, port groups type=1, MAC groups type=2) with entry counts and ACL…

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_ip_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No
`groupType`	No	'ip'(0), 'port'(1), 'mac'(2), or 'all'

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

B3.2/5.0

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 safety and idempotency are covered by structured data. The description adds only that results carry entry counts and something about ACLs, and that sentence is truncated, so no further behavioral context (pagination, ordering, account/site scoping requirements) is disclosed.

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?

Only one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, which is good structure. However it terminates with an ellipsis mid-phrase, making the definition read as incomplete rather than deliberately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. What remains missing is handling of the undocumented 'site' parameter and any routing versus the port-profile sibling, but for a two-parameter read-only list tool this is close to sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: groupType already documents the 'ip'(0)/'port'(1)/'mac'(2) mapping in the schema, so the description largely repeats it, though it usefully adds the 'all' option that the schema's type union leaves implicit. The second parameter, site, gets no explanation in either place, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List profile groups') and enumerates the three group categories with their numeric type codes, which lets an agent distinguish this from a generic profile listing. It falls short of 5 because the sentence is cut off mid-clause ('with entry counts and ACL…'), so the scope of what is returned is only partly stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. Notably, a sibling named list_port_profiles exists, and the description never explains whether port groups here overlap with that tool or how to choose between them, leaving the agent to guess.

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