Reads a single fixed Omada site configuration dataset, such as DHCP reservations, firewall, or QoS, while rejecting unknown datasets and avoiding arbitrary paths.
Read one fixed configuration dataset. No arbitrary paths or methods; unknown datasets are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | No | ||
| dataset | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: unknown datasets are rejected and there is no path/method passthrough, implying strict validation errors. It says nothing about permissions, defaults, or response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the constraint follows immediately after the purpose. Brevity is a virtue here, though the second sentence could be folded into a clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should compensate and does not: it omits siteId semantics, never indicates what a returned dataset looks like, and gives no size/shape expectations. For a 23-way enum read tool this leaves real gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not. The optional siteId parameter is never mentioned — an agent cannot tell whether omitting it means "current site" or something else — and the 23-value dataset enum is left entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb+resource ("Read one fixed configuration dataset") is identifiable, but "dataset" stays abstract and the description never says this is site configuration data keyed by the schema's enum. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as getLanNetworks, which appears to overlap with the lanNetworks dataset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implicit "read config" framing. There is no mention of how this relates to getLanNetworks or the list* siblings, which an agent would need to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.