omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List port forwarding rules

list_port_forwards

Read-onlyIdempotent

List gateway NAT port forwarding and DMZ-mapped rules.

Instructions

List gateway NAT port forwarding and DMZ-mapped rules.

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_port_forwards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	No

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

B3.3/5.0

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 by structured data. The description contributes only the additional scope detail that both NAT port forwards and DMZ-mapped rules are returned; it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or behavior when '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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource scope appears immediately and nothing redundant is included.

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 need no explanation, and the tool itself is simple with one optional parameter. However, the unresolved semantics of the optional 'site' parameter — the one thing an agent could get wrong here — leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 the single 'site' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not — it never mentions site scoping or what happens when the parameter is omitted (all sites vs. default site). For a list tool whose only lever is scope, this is a meaningful 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?

States a specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource scope: gateway NAT port forwarding rules and DMZ-mapped rules. That scope detail usefully separates it from superficially similar siblings such as list_port_profiles or list_acls, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The stated scope ('gateway NAT port forwarding and DMZ-mapped rules') implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to a sibling for the cases this tool does not cover.

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