Fetch live per-port counters—link state, tx/rx bytes and packets, errors, drops, and PoE watts—to pinpoint a misbehaving cable or device on an Omada switch.
Live per-port counters: link state, tx/rx bytes and packets, ERRORS and DROPS, plus PoE draw in watts per port and total budget. This is the tool for "is a cable or a device misbehaving".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | No | ||
| switchMac | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'live' freshness framing and the contents of the counters, which is useful. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how a switch with no live data behaves.
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 sentences, zero waste. The high-value content list is front-loaded and the use-case tag follows as a scannable closer. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.
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, the description correctly enumerates the returned counters, so the return side is reasonably complete. The input side is not: two 0%-documented parameters are left unexplained, and no behavior for missing/ambiguous scope is given. Adequate but with a clear input-side gap.
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% and the description mentions neither siteId nor switchMac. With both parameters optional and no required field, an agent cannot tell from the description how to scope the query (site-wide vs single switch) or whether switchMac filters within siteId. This is the definition's weakest point.
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 resource (per-port counters) and enumerates the exact payload: link state, tx/rx bytes/packets, errors, drops, and PoE draw/budget. An agent knows what it returns. However, it never names or contrasts with the nearby siblings v2_switch_stats and v2_switch_ports, so the differentiation from those must be inferred.
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 closing line 'is a cable or a device misbehaving' gives a concrete diagnostic scenario, which is a clear when-to-use context. It stops short of explicit alternatives (e.g., use v2_switch_stats for switch-level totals) or any when-not condition, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.