safe-omada-mcp

getGridBlockList

Get the IPS block list (paginated). Returns entries that are explicitly blocked by the Intrusion Prevention System. Supports optional keyword search.

Instructions

Get the IPS block list (paginated). Returns entries that are explicitly blocked by the Intrusion Prevention System. Supports optional keyword search.

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": "getGridBlockList"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Start page number. Start from 1.
`siteId`	No	Site ID to target. If omitted, uses the default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config. Use listSites to discover available site IDs.
`pageSize`	No	Number of entries per page. Range: 1-1000.
`searchKey`	No	Optional search keyword to filter IPS block-list entries.
`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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paginated and returns explicitly blocked entries, which is useful. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it cover authentication, default-site behavior, or return format.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, with no wasted language.

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?

The description covers purpose, pagination, and keyword search, but with no output schema it does not describe the shape or fields of returned entries. It also leaves out the default-site behavior, though that is documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces keyword search but adds no extra syntax, format, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get the IPS block list') and clarifies the scope ('entries explicitly blocked by the Intrusion Prevention System'). It implicitly distinguishes the block list from the sibling allow list, but does not explicitly name or contrast with getGridAllowList.

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?

The description mentions optional keyword search but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the allow list or other grid tools. It does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server