Retrieve controller locations from OpenWISP, filtered by name, address, organization ID, or slug. Use it to find and manage network site locations via the REST API.
[Category: Geo & Locations] List controller locations. (HTTP GET /api/v1/controller/location/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search by location name or address | |
| organization | No | Organization ID filter | |
| organization_slug | No | Organization slug filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The HTTP GET annotation implies a read operation, but nothing is said about pagination, ordering, authentication, or result size; the safety/behavior profile is essentially undocumented.
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 compact fragments with the category tag and endpoint; nothing is padded. Slight redundancy in restating the resource via both name and URL, but it stays front-loaded and readable.
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?
For a simple zero-required-parameter list tool this covers the essentials of what it returns at a high level, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves pagination, default ordering, and the distinction from other location-list siblings unaddressed.
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 100%, so search, organization, and organization_slug are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about filter combination or semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('List controller locations') and names the underlying endpoint, so an agent knows this is a read of location records. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as openwisp_list_location_devices or openwisp_list_location_geojson, but the plain 'list locations' framing is unambiguous enough.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many location-related siblings (get_location, list_location_devices, list_floorplans). The agent must infer the context itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.