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

safe-omada-mcp

by gaspareduard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getSitesSwitchesEs

Retrieve managed switch details by providing its MAC address and optional site ID. Enables network administrators to view switch information.

Instructions

Get easy managed switch info.

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": {
      "switchMac": "<switchMac>"
    },
    "name": "getSitesSwitchesEs"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits, pagination, or side effects). The description is too minimal.

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?

The description is very short (one sentence). While concise, it lacks structure and omits important details, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool returns complex info (nested objects), the description fails to explain what 'easy managed switch info' includes or how the response is structured. It is incomplete.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get easy managed switch info' clearly identifies the resource (easy managed switch) and the action (get info). It distinguishes from siblings that target specific details (e.g., getSitesSwitchesEsGeneralConfig, getSwitchDetail), though 'info' is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like getSitesSwitchesEsGeneralConfig or getSwitchDetail exist, but no usage context or exclusions are given.

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