safe-omada-mcp

listOsgAcls

List gateway (OSG) ACL rules for a site: firewall rules controlling traffic between WAN, LAN, and guest networks. Returns rule name, action (allow/deny), source/destination, protocol, and enabled state.

Instructions

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": "listOsgAcls"
  }
}

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.

Addedv0.18.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does usefully enumerate the returned fields (name, action allow/deny, source/destination, protocol, enabled state) and clarifies the domain meaning of the rules, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether results are exhaustive for the site.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the return shape. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is filler.

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?

With only 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main gaps by naming the return fields and explaining what an OSG ACL is. The remaining missing piece is routing among the many sibling ACL-list tools, which matters given this dense tool surface.

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%; siteId already documents the OMADA_SITE_ID fallback and points to listSites, and customHeaders explains itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list gateway/OSG ACL rules for a site) and clarifies what OSG ACLs physically are (firewall rules between WAN, LAN and guest networks). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as getOsgCustomAclList, getOswAclList, or listEapAcls, so an agent must infer the boundary from the parenthetical alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'gateway (OSG)' qualifier implicitly scopes usage against switch and EAP ACL tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus getOsgCustomAclList or getGridGatewayRule. Usage is inferable from the scope wording rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server