Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
safe-omada-mcp

safe-omada-mcp

by gaspareduard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getSitesApsLoadBalance

Retrieve load balance configuration for a specific access point by MAC address using the Omada controller API. Verify or troubleshoot wireless load distribution settings.

Instructions

Get load balance config for an AP.

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": "getSitesApsLoadBalance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apMacYesMAC address of the access point (e.g. "AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF"). Use listDevices to find AP MACs.
siteIdNoSite ID to target. If omitted, uses the default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config. Use listSites to discover available site IDs.
customHeadersNoOptional 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.

  1. First observedv0.17.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, but description implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., missing config), permissions, or side effects, but for a simple get config, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, with zero superfluous content. Highly concise while still clear.

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?

Given the simple read nature and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It lacks output format details but that is compensated by clarity of purpose and schema. Slightly better than minimal.

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 provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no extra meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already clarifies parameters.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'load balance config for an AP', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getApGeneralConfig or getApQosConfig. It precisely states the action and target.

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 getApRadios. The description does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools