Skip to main content
Glama

getAclConfigTypeSetting

Get the ACL configuration type setting for the site gateway (L2 or L3 mode). Determines how ACL rules are evaluated for traffic.

Instructions

Get the ACL configuration type setting for the site gateway (L2 or L3 mode). Determines how ACL rules are evaluated for traffic.

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": "getAclConfigTypeSetting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdNoSite ID to target. If omitted, uses the default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config. Use listSites to discover available site IDs.
customHeadersNoOptional HTTP headers to include in the Omada API request (e.g. {"X-Custom-Header": "value"}). Rarely needed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool reads a mode setting that governs how ACL rules are evaluated, but says nothing about permissions, whether a default site is silently used, or what the response looks like for a read-only getter.

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?

Two compact sentences with the key fact (L2/L3 mode) front-loaded and the consequence (how ACL rules are evaluated) second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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?

For a simple zero-required-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is adequate to know what is being fetched, but it doesn't describe the return shape (raw enum? nested object?) beyond naming the two possible modes. Acceptable minimum, not rich.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (siteId, customHeaders) are already fully documented in the schema, including the fallback to OMADA_SITE_ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the ACL configuration type setting for the site gateway') and pins down the returned value as L2 or L3 mode. This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools like getFirewallSetting and listOsgAcls, 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many ACL/firewall siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the purpose sentence, so an agent must infer applicability from context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools