mcp-omada

set_radio_channel

Change an AP's 2.4GHz or 5GHz radio channel, previewing before/after values and applying only after confirmation to prevent client disconnects.

Instructions

Set an AP's 2.4GHz ("2g") or 5GHz ("5g") radio channel.

WRITE tool, guarded: blocked entirely unless the server is running with OMADA_ALLOW_WRITE=true. Call with confirm=False (the default) to get a before/after preview (channel + freq) without changing anything; call again with confirm=True to actually apply it.

applied=True is only ever returned once a post-write re-read confirms the change (comparing freq, the one reliable round-trip value) - a bare "the controller said Success" is never trusted on its own. If the controller accepted the write but the re-read shows no change, applied=False and message explains why - see guard.set_radio_channel's docstring and docs/api-notes.md. Every call also carries a warning: changing a channel restarts the radio (clients on that band briefly disconnect and reassociate), plus, on 5GHz, the confirmed channel-persists-as-internal-index caveat.

Legacy auth only. channel is the operator-facing channel number (e.g. 11 on 2.4GHz, 149 on 5GHz) - this tool always derives the matching frequency itself (channels.py) and resends the complete current radio configuration with only channel/freq changed, so the confirmed real-hardware silent-discard gotcha (int channel, or a missing freq) can't be hit by construction - see docs/api-notes.md.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mac`	Yes
`band`	Yes
`channel`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`site_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the write guard, the preview/apply flow, that applied=True requires a post-write re-read of freq, the applied=False outcome with an explanatory message, the legacy-auth requirement, and the warning that changing a channel briefly drops clients on that band.

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?

Front-loads the operation, then the guard, then confirm semantics, then return/warning details in a logical order. It is dense with implementation references to guard docstrings and docs/api-notes.md that could be trimmed, but little of the content is truly redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a guarded mutation with an output schema, the description covers the guard, the confirmation protocol, what applied/message mean, and the side effects. Returns are already documented by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious params: channel is the operator-facing number (11 on 2.4GHz, 149 on 5GHz) with freq derived internally, and confirm's preview-vs-apply semantics are spelled out. mac and site_id are left unexplained, and band only gains the '2g'/'5g' hint, so the coverage is strong but not complete.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Set) plus the exact resource (an AP's 2.4GHz or 5GHz radio channel) and names the band tokens '2g'/'5g' that the agent must supply. All siblings are read-only tools, so this write tool is unambiguously distinguished.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the write guard (blocked unless OMADA_ALLOW_WRITE=true) and the two-step flow: call with confirm=False for a preview, then with confirm=True to apply. This is exactly the when-and-how guidance an agent needs before invoking.

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

Deploy Server