Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
endpoint-aiops-mcp

endpoint-aiops-mcp

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

patch_status

Read-only

Check patch-level distribution across managed endpoints and identify systems behind a target patch level, defaulting to fleet-majority when no target is set.

Instructions

[READ] Patch-level distribution + which endpoints are behind the target level.

Args: target_patch: Desired patch level; omit to use the fleet-majority level. endpoints: Injected inventory rows; skips live collection. target: Endpoint-management target name from config; omit for the default. limit: Max behind-endpoints to return (default 200).

Returns dict: {totalEndpoints, targetPatch, targetSource, distribution, behindCount, behind:{items[], returned, limit, truncated}}. behindCount is the full count; when behind.truncated is true, re-run with a higher limit.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
targetNo
endpointsNo
target_patchNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 200,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the [READ] tag reinforces it. Beyond that, the description discloses real behavioral detail: passing endpoints injects inventory rows and skips live collection, and behind.truncated signals the result was capped and should be re-run with a higher limit. This is substantive context that annotations alone would not convey.

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?

The purpose line is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is scannable and free of filler. It is slightly verbose for a four-parameter read tool, but each line carries distinct information rather than padding.

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 output schema, the description correctly documents the return shape: keys, the distinction between behindCount and the returned items, and the truncation contract. The main gap is that it never states how this differs from patch_compliance or drift_report, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only titles and defaults. The description compensates fully: it explains target_patch's fallback to the fleet-majority level, endpoints' injected-inventory behavior, target's config-driven default, and limit's default of 200. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb+resource: patch-level distribution plus identification of endpoints behind a target level. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling patch_compliance or drift_report, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied through the arg semantics: omit target_patch to fall back to the fleet-majority level, and omit target to use the configured default. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-patch_compliance guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as credentials or config availability.

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