get_operation_schemaRetrieve the method, path, parameters, and request body schema for a specific operation in the Omada controller's OpenAPI catalog.
Get one operation's method, path, parameters, and request body schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the returned content (method, path, parameters, request body schema) and implies a read-only operation by using 'Get,' but it does not address error behavior, prerequisites, or any side effects. This is acceptable for a simple schema lookup but leaves some behavioral detail implicit.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and the retrieved elements, earning its place without redundancy.
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?
The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and a clear read-only purpose, so the description covers the essential operation. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. Minor gaps remain—such as how to obtain operation_id—but the simplicity of the tool makes the description largely complete.
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 only refers to 'one operation' without explicitly explaining what operation_id is or where it comes from. It does not mention formats, source via search_operations, or how to find a valid operation ID. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('one operation') and enumerates the exact output scope: method, path, parameters, and request body schema. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_operations (searching) and call_operation (executing), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 description implies the use case—retrieve a single operation's schema—but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_operations or call_operation. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.