omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List switch LAN port profiles

list_port_profiles

Read-onlyIdempotent

List switch port profiles (All, Disable, custom VLAN/PoE profiles).

Instructions

List switch port profiles (All, Disable, custom VLAN/PoE profiles).

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_profiles"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

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 only the set of profile types returned; it says nothing about scoping, default/vs custom behavior, or whether site is required to narrow results.

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 sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical carries real information rather than restating the title. It is perhaps over-compressed given what is left unsaid.

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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any statement of the site parameter's effect and the relationship to sibling listing tools, which leaves an agent guessing on scoping.

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 there is one parameter, 'site', which the description never mentions — no explanation of what happens when it is omitted (all sites?) or what format it takes. With only one undocumented parameter the gap is small but fully unmitigated.

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 ("List switch port profiles") and the parenthetical enumerates the profile types returned (All, Disable, custom VLAN/PoE), so an agent knows the resource's contents. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_switch_ports or list_port_forwards, so it stops short of 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 when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says whether this should be called before assigning a profile to a port, or how it relates to get_switch_ports. The implied 'list' semantics are the only usage signal.

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