Skip to main content
Glama

List WLANs

list_wlans
Read-onlyIdempotent

List configured WLANs/SSIDs with band, VLAN, security type and guest flag.

Instructions

List configured WLANs/SSIDs with band, VLAN, security type and guest flag.

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_wlans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / site
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observedv1.2.2

TDQS

B3/5.0
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 adds only the set of fields surfaced, which is largely redundant with the output schema; it says nothing about pagination, cross-site scope, or whether unconfigured/disabled SSIDs appear.

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; the returned-field list is compact. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves scope questions unanswered rather than being optimally informative.

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 spelled out, and the description correctly focuses on the resource. However, for a tool with an undocumented optional 'site' scoping parameter and multiple similar list_* siblings, the definition leaves real gaps about scope and disambiguation.

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?

There is one parameter, 'site', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It is therefore unclear whether omitting 'site' lists WLANs across all sites or fails, which is the key semantic an agent needs before calling.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') plus the resource ('configured WLANs/SSIDs') and names the attributes returned (band, VLAN, security type, guest flag). It is clearly distinguishable from get_* siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from list_wlan_groups or list_wifi_clients.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over list_wlan_groups, list_wifi_clients, or list_wlan_groups-style siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the word 'configured'.

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