safe-omada-mcp

listMostActiveClients

Identify network clients with highest traffic usage in a site, returning name, MAC, model, and wireless status for quick monitoring.

Instructions

Get the most active clients in a site, sorted by total traffic. Returns client name, MAC address, type, model, wireless status, and total traffic. This is a dashboard endpoint that provides a quick overview of top clients by traffic usage.

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": "listMostActiveClients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sorted nature and return fields, but does not mention potential limits on number of clients, pagination, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences that are concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description covers return fields and the overall purpose. However, it lacks details on result limits or sorting order, which would be helpful for a complete understanding. The context is adequate for a simple dashboard endpoint.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the role of siteId in determining the default site.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets the most active clients in a site, sorted by total traffic. Specifies return fields and distinguishes from sibling tools like getClient or listClients by focusing on top traffic clients as a dashboard overview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Describes the tool as a dashboard endpoint for a quick overview, implying it's for summary rather than detailed client info. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or suggest alternatives like getClientDetail for more detailed client data.

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

Deploy Server