safe-omada-mcp

getDscpConfig

[DEPRECATED] Get DSCP/QoS tag outbound traffic configuration. This is an alias for getQosPolicy — use getQosPolicy instead.

Instructions

[DEPRECATED] Get DSCP/QoS tag outbound traffic configuration. This is an alias for getQosPolicy — use getQosPolicy instead.

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": "getDscpConfig"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.

Addedv0.18.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses deprecation and alias status, which are important behavioral traits, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. For a simple getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The deprecation warning and alias relationship are front-loaded, so an agent immediately sees the most important routing 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?

For a deprecated alias with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the critical context: that it is deprecated and should be routed to getQosPolicy. It could mention read-only behavior or return shape, but the key invocation decision is fully covered.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well, including siteId defaults and customHeaders rarity. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it gets the DSCP/QoS tag outbound traffic configuration. It also explicitly identifies itself as an alias for getQosPolicy, which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling tool without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit routing guidance: '[DEPRECATED]' plus 'This is an alias for getQosPolicy — use getQosPolicy instead.' The agent is told both when to avoid this tool and which alternative to choose.

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

Deploy Server