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

safe-omada-mcp

by gaspareduard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getStackPorts

Retrieve detailed port information for a specified switch stack to monitor and manage network ports effectively.

Instructions

Get all port information for a switch stack.

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": {
      "stackId": "<stackId>"
    },
    "name": "getStackPorts"
  }
}

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.
stackIdYes
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
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description offers no behavioral details (e.g., read-only, rate limits, required permissions). It merely restates the tool name's purpose.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise but could benefit from a brief note on typical usage without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to indicate return format, pagination, or limitations. Users are left uncertain about the data structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, but the description adds no parameter-level information. The required parameter stackId lacks description in both schema and description, and siteId's description is only in schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all port information for a switch stack.' It distinguishes from siblings like getGatewayPorts and getSwitchStackDetail by specifying port information for a stack.

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 (e.g., getSwitchDetail for individual switch ports or listSitesStacks for stack listing). No context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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