safe-omada-mcp

getApLldpConfig

Retrieve LLDP configuration for a specific access point, including enabled state and advertised TLVs, to understand its identity and capability advertisements to neighboring network devices.

Instructions

Get LLDP (Link Layer Discovery Protocol) configuration for an access point. Returns enabled state and advertised TLVs. LLDP allows network devices to advertise identity and capabilities to neighbours.

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": "getApLldpConfig"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation with no side effects, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., AP must be adopted, needed permissions). Adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences; the first is concise and informative. The second sentence ('LLDP allows...') is generic and may not be necessary for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and return. But it omits potential error conditions or state dependencies (e.g., AP offline). Moderately complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including format and defaults. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get LLDP configuration for an access point' and specifies the return values ('enabled state and advertised TLVs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getApGeneralConfig or getApSnmpConfig.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getApGeneralConfig or getApSnmpConfig. The description does not provide context for when LLDP configuration is relevant or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server