Enable or disable Omada site services including SNMP v1/v2c/v3, SSH, mDNS, and UPnP; dry-run returns the payload and changes are read back and diffed.
Toggle site services: SNMP v1/v2c/v3, SSH access, mDNS repeater, UPnP. Each is read back and diffed. [READ-ONLY MODE: returns the exact payload instead of sending it]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ssh | No | ||
| mdns | No | ||
| upnp | No | ||
| dryRun | No | ||
| siteId | No | ||
| snmpV3 | No | ||
| sshPort | No | ||
| snmpV1V2C | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a mutating but idempotent and non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that each service is read back and diffed, and that a read-only/dry-run mode returns the exact payload instead of sending it.
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?
The description is front-loaded and compact: the main action and affected services come first, followed by read-back/diff behavior and the dry-run mode note. Every sentence adds distinct information without padding.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main service toggles and dry-run behavior adequately enough for basic invocation, while annotations carry the safety profile. It remains incomplete because key parameters such as siteId, sshPort, and boolean semantics are not explained anywhere.
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?
With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the full explanatory burden, but it only loosely names the service-related booleans. It does not explain boolean true/false semantics, does not identify siteId or sshPort, and refers to the dry-run mode without naming the dryRun parameter.
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 description states a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('site services'), then enumerates the exact services affected: SNMP v1/v2c/v3, SSH access, mDNS repeater, and UPnP. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the read-oriented sibling v2_services, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implied by 'Toggle site services' and by the bracketed dry-run note, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like v2_services or v2_set_site_feature, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.