Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

scrub_status

Read-only

Check a Ceph target for placement groups overdue for shallow or deep scrubbing by decoding PG_NOT_SCRUBBED and PG_NOT_DEEP_SCRUBBED flags.

Instructions

[READ] PGs overdue for shallow / deep scrub (decodes PG_NOT(_DEEP)_SCRUBBED).

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": "scrub_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.11.5
  2. Removedv0.3.0
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful implementation detail (decoding PG_NOT(_DEEP)_SCRUBBED) and clarifies it reports overdue PGs, but says nothing about output shape or scope of the query.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely tight: a one-line purpose plus a two-line args block. Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and the core purpose; no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers purpose and the single parameter, which is adequate for a simple read tool. But with no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnly, more could be said about what 'overdue' means or the response structure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry param semantics. It does explain target as a Ceph target name and that omission yields the default, which compensates meaningfully, though it doesn't clarify format or valid values.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: identifies PGs overdue for shallow/deep scrub, and parenthetically discloses the underlying implementation (decoding PG_NOT(_DEEP)_SCRUBBED). Clear what it returns, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like trigger_scrub or pg_summary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this is a read/reporting tool for scrub status, and the [READ] tag signals read usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like trigger_scrub/trigger_deep_scrub or pg_summary, so usage must be inferred.

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