safe-omada-mcp

listSitesCableTestSwitchesIncrementResults

Retrieve incremental cable test results for a switch by its MAC address, with optional site targeting.

Instructions

Get cable test incremental results for a switch.

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": "listSitesCableTestSwitchesIncrementResults"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siteId`	No	Site ID to target. If omitted, uses the default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config. Use listSites to discover available site IDs.
`switchMac`	Yes	MAC address of the switch (e.g. "AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF"). Use listDevices to find switch MACs.
`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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'get incremental results' without detailing behavior such as whether results are cumulative, paginated, or what data is returned. No side effects or safety info is disclosed.

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 a single brief sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded to cover key points without becoming overly long. Not wasteful but underinformative.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools, more context is needed. The description does not explain what 'incremental results' means, how to interpret them, or how they relate to other cable test tools. Incomplete for effective use.

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%, so the schema itself documents all parameters well. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Meets baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cable test incremental results for a switch'. It differentiates from siblings like 'getCableTestFullResults' and 'getCableTestLogs' by specifying 'incremental', but could be more explicit about scope.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., full results or logs), nor any prerequisites or context. This leaves the agent without guidance on selection.

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

Deploy Server