safe-omada-mcp

getSitesApsOfdma

Get OFDMA settings for an access point by providing its MAC address. Returns the current OFDMA configuration.

Instructions

Get OFDMA configuration 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": "getSitesApsOfdma"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing read-only nature, authentication requirements, side effects, or error conditions. The brevity leaves the agent without essential safety context.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's purpose and behavior. Could add more context without excessive length (e.g., mention OFDMA is for 802.11ax). Not concise in a helpful way.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, no description of return values or what 'OFDMA configuration' entails. Given the complexity of 3 parameters including a nested object, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and output.

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% with adequate param descriptions (e.g., apMac regex example, siteId fallback). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get OFDMA configuration for an AP' uses a specific verb and resource (OFDMA configuration for an AP), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other AP settings like radios, VLAN, or general config.

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 other AP configuration tools (e.g., getApDetail, getApRadios). The parameter descriptions hint at prerequisites (use listDevices for MAC, listSites for siteId) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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

Deploy Server