safe-omada-mcp

getFirewallSetting

Get the site-global firewall settings returned by the official Omada firewall endpoint.

Instructions

Get the site-global firewall settings returned by the official Omada firewall endpoint.

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": "getFirewallSetting"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load; it implies read-only via 'Get' and notes the data comes from the 'official Omada firewall endpoint', hinting at pass-through semantics. It does not state permission requirements, whether defaults/site fallback behavior applies, or failure modes for a site with no firewall config.

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 padding. The trailing 'returned by the official Omada firewall endpoint' is close to filler but does add provenance context, so it narrowly earns its place.

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?

Zero required parameters and no output schema keep the burden light, but for a 'get settings' tool the agent still has no sense of the response shape or which settings categories are included, which matters given the many overlapping firewall-config siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and the siteId parameter already documents the default-site fallback and listSites discovery path. The description only echoes the 'site-global' scoping idea and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema; 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?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (site-global firewall settings), and scopes it as site-global. It does not distinguish itself from the many firewall-adjacent siblings (getAttackDefenseSetting, getAclConfigTypeSetting, getUrlFilterGeneral, etc.), which leaves real ambiguity about which firewall slice this returns.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the crowded firewall sibling set. The only implicit signal is that it is a read, which the verb already conveys.

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

Deploy Server