omada-mcp

by falehsub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List static routes

list_static_routes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List configured gateway static routes (destinations, next hop, interface, metric).

Instructions

List configured gateway static routes (destinations, next hop, interface, metric).

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_static_routes"
  }
}

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. The description adds the set of returned attributes but says nothing about behavior beyond that — e.g., whether omitting the site filter returns all sites, or whether results are paginated.

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; the resource comes first and the field list trails it. The parenthetical overlaps with the existing output schema, which slightly weakens its value.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description does not need to explain safety or return shapes, and it correctly stays short. However, for a tool whose only input is undocumented, leaving site semantics entirely unaddressed is a real gap.

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?

The single parameter "site" has 0% schema description coverage and is never referenced in the description. An agent cannot tell from either source whether site is required, what format it takes, or what happens when it is omitted.

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?

"List configured gateway static routes" names a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates what the tool surfaces (destinations, next hop, interface, metric). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_policy_routes by the word "static," though it never says so explicitly.

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, no prerequisite, and no mention of the nearby list_policy_routes tool, which is the most likely point of confusion for an agent. Scope is only inferred from the tool name and the listed fields.

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