Retrieve historical client sessions, including MAC, SSID/network, AP, duration, traffic, and disconnect reason, to diagnose why a device dropped from an Omada network.
Historical client sessions: MAC, SSID/network, AP, duration, traffic, disconnect reason. Use for "why did this device drop".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look-back window in hours. Default 24. | |
| limit | No | ||
| siteId | 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful context, but says nothing about the default look-back window, result volume, or pagination behavior.
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 sentences with no filler; the field inventory is front-loaded and the usage cue follows. It could arguably compress the field list, but nothing is wasted.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right move and the annotations carry the safety story. Still missing for a 3-parameter tool: meaning of 'siteId' and 'limit' and any hint about default scope, so the definition is adequate but 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 only 33%: 'hours' is documented in the schema (default 24) but 'limit' and 'siteId' have no description anywhere. The description never mentions any of the three parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap that would tell an agent how to scope site and result size.
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 noun phrase 'Historical client sessions' names the resource and the field list (MAC, SSID/network, AP, duration, traffic, disconnect reason) makes the payload concrete, so an agent knows what data comes back. However, it carries no verb and no differentiation from the near-identical sibling v2_client_history, leaving the boundary between the two ambiguous.
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?
The quoted trigger '"why did this device drop"' is a real task-level cue that implies when to reach for this tool. It stops there: no when-not condition, no mention of v2_client_history or v2_client_survival as alternatives, and no guidance on choosing this over the general client tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.