Retrieve event and audit logs and other data from Omada controllers via Open API v1. Required for controller 6.2+ where v1 returns logs missing from v2.
GET any Open API (v1) path, relative to /openapi/v1/{omadacId}. The v1 API is the ONLY one that returns event and audit logs on controller 6.2+ (measured: 88,522 events via v1, 0 via v2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: version-dependent log availability on controller 6.2+ and the path base semantics. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits for this raw passthrough.
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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the version caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 raw passthrough GET with no output schema and an undocumented nested query object, the definition should explain the query parameter format and path conventions more fully. It covers the base URL and the key version-selection rationale, but leaves the caller to guess query serialization.
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 carries the burden. It clarifies that 'path' is relative to /openapi/v1/{omadacId}, which is genuinely useful, but leaves the 'query' object (nested) entirely unexplained, as well as how omadacId is obtained.
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 specific verb (GET), resource (arbitrary Open API v1 path), and the base it is relative to (/openapi/v1/{omadacId}). The v1 vs v2 framing makes it clearly distinguishable from the entire v2_* sibling family.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when v1 is required: it is the ONLY version returning event and audit logs on controller 6.2+, with measured evidence (88,522 vs 0). It does not explicitly say when to prefer the v2_* siblings instead, so routing is implied rather than fully closed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.