Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omada-mcp

omada-mcp

by shamalawy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Omada connection status

omada_status
Read-only

Check the Omada MCP server's configuration, loaded API spec, and connection status by requesting an access token.

Instructions

Show the server's configuration (no secrets), which spec is loaded, and test the connection by getting an access token.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "omada_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description does add useful context beyond them: that configuration is returned without secrets and that the call performs a live network auth handshake to obtain an access token. It does not say what happens on failure (error vs. degraded status output), which is the key behavioral question for a connectivity test.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the primary output (server configuration) is front-loaded. The final clause about the access token is slightly compressed given how much behavior it carries, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return content, and it does list the three things returned. The only gap is failure-mode behavior, which is minor for a low-complexity status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No spurious parameter discussion is present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names concrete outputs: server configuration (with secrets excluded), which spec is loaded, and the result of an access-token connection test. That is enough to tell it is a diagnostic/status tool rather than one of the operation-invoking siblings like omada_call_operation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies a diagnostic use ('test the connection'), but never states when to call it versus omada_request or omada_get_schema, nor any prerequisite such as configuring credentials first. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight check.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools