safe-omada-mcp

getApGeneralConfig

Retrieve the stored general configuration for an access point, including device name, LED settings, country, management VLAN, and bandwidth limits.

Instructions

Get general configuration for an access point. Returns device name, LED settings, country/region, management VLAN, bandwidth limits, and other global AP parameters. Use getApDetail for runtime status; this returns stored configuration.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "apMac": "<apMac>"
    },
    "name": "getApGeneralConfig"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apMac`	Yes	MAC address of the access point (e.g. "AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF"). Use listDevices to find AP MACs.
`siteId`	No	Site ID to target. If omitted, uses the default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config. Use listSites to discover available site IDs.
`customHeaders`	No	Optional 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.

First observedv0.17.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that the tool returns stored configuration (not runtime), but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden; more behavioral cues would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose and contents, second provides usage guidance. No redundant phrases, efficiently communicates key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lists several returned fields, enough to understand scope. No output schema exists, but the description gives a reasonable overview. Could mention error cases or that return is a JSON object with nested parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all 3 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by referencing help tools for apMac (listDevices) and siteId (listSites), going beyond the schema's format descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'general configuration for an access point', listing specific returned fields. Distinguishes from siblings like getApDetail by noting it returns stored configuration vs runtime status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly advises using getApDetail for runtime status, providing a direct alternative. While it doesn't list exhaustive when-not-to-use scenarios, the single contrast is sufficient for clear differentiation.

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

Deploy Server