Retrieve switch-level state and configuration for an Omada site, including firmware, uptime, CPU/memory, STP settings, LAGs, LLDP neighbors, and STP-disabled flags.
Switch-level state: model, firmware, uptime, CPU/mem, STP mode + bridge priority + timers, device-level loopback detection, jumbo frames, SNMP, LAGs, LLDP uplink/downlink neighbours. Flags STP-disabled switches.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add value beyond that by disclosing scope (switch-level vs device-level fields) and the fact that STP-disabled switches are flagged, which is a real behavioral trait. It does not cover result volume, pagination, or what happens when siteId is omitted.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource ('Switch-level state:'), followed by a compact field enumeration and a short flag note. No filler or redundancy, though the field list is dense enough to be slightly hard to scan.
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 does the useful work of enumerating returned fields, which is appropriate. However, it omits the siteId selector semantics, any pagination or result-size expectation, and any indication of how it relates to the adjacent switch tools, leaving real gaps for a data-retrieval tool with ~4 sibling candidates.
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 single parameter siteId has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, its format, or what the default scope is when it is absent. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though siteId is a fairly self-evident identifier.
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 enumerates the switch-level fields returned (model, firmware, uptime, STP, jumbo frames, LAGs, LLDP), so the resource is identifiable, but it reads as a noun dump with no verb and makes no attempt to distinguish itself from closely-named siblings such as v2_switch_stats, v2_switch_ports, or v2_switch_stats. An agent cannot tell from this text why it should pick v2_switches over those.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives despite at least three sibling tools covering switch data. The only implicit signal is 'Flags STP-disabled switches', which hints at a diagnostic use case but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.