io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

osd_tree

Read-only

Read all Ceph OSDs to report up/in state, weight, host, and device class, optionally for a configured target. Use it to inspect cluster storage topology and health.

Instructions

[READ] All OSDs: up/in state, weight, host, device class.

Args: target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.

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": "osd_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a non-mutating read, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that. The description does add value by naming the fields the agent will get back, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or failure behavior for an unreachable target. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact lines with the payload description front-loaded before the argument note. Slightly mechanical 'Args:' formatting and the redundant '[READ]' tag cost it a point, but nothing is padded.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool is, what it returns, and how to handle the only argument. Only the absence of guidance relative to sibling OSD tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0% (the schema only has a bare 'Target' title), so the description must carry the parameter explanation — and it does, defining target as a Ceph target name from config and explaining that omission selects the default. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('All OSDs') and enumerates the data returned (up/in state, weight, host, device class), which is specific enough for an agent to know this is the OSD topology listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like osd_df or osd_perf, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this over osd_df, osd_perf, or cluster_status, and no stated preconditions. The only usage hint is 'omit for the default' for the target argument, which is parameter-level rather than tool-level guidance.

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