Lists neighboring and rogue access points detected by your Omada APs, including SSID, BSSID, channel, signal and security. Returns empty until a scan has run.
Neighbouring/rogue APs seen by your own APs — SSID, BSSID, channel, signal, security. Empty until a scan has run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral fact beyond annotations: the result set is empty until a scan has run, which affects how an agent should interpret an empty response. It does not describe pagination or result limits.
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 tight, front-loaded sentences: first the resource and returned fields, then the availability precondition. No filler, and the most important caveat is stated last but still compact.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys content and the scan precondition. It falls short on the siteId parameter's meaning and any scoping behavior, leaving a gap for an agent deciding whether to pass a site.
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?
The sole parameter siteId has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains whether it scopes the query to a site or how results behave when it is omitted. With low coverage the description should have compensated, and it does not.
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 (neighbouring/rogue APs) with a clear scope qualifier ("seen by your own APs") and enumerates the returned fields (SSID, BSSID, channel, signal, security). An agent can tell what it returns, though it does not explicitly contrast with related siblings like v2_security_audit or v2_interference_audit.
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?
Usage is only implied by the resource name; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The one useful usage signal is the precondition "Empty until a scan has run," which tells the agent results depend on a prior scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.