Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

fabric-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

blink_device_leds

Destructive

Blinks locator LEDs on a network device for a set duration to help locate it physically in a rack or site.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=medium] Blink a device's locator LEDs to find it physically.

No configuration change (a locate aid), so no undo is recorded. It is still
a POST to the controller, so it is tiered as a write: ``risk_level="low"``
is what marks a tool as a *read*. Tiering this "low" would misreport a POST
as a read in the audit trail, contradicting its own [WRITE] tag.

Args:
    serial: Device serial.
    duration: Blink duration in seconds (5..120, default 20).
    target: Target name from config; omit for the default.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serialYes
targetNo
durationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare write/not-idempotent/destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: it is a POST to the controller, records no undo, and makes no configuration change. The tiering paragraph explains why it is tagged a write, though it is somewhat framework-meta rather than invocation-relevant.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the verb and intent, but the middle paragraph defends the risk tiering at length, which is mostly framework meta-commentary that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool. Some of that prose does not earn its place.

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 3-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameters, the absence of undo, and the non-config-changing nature. It is adequately complete, missing only details like the response shape or permission requirements.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it documents serial, duration (range 5..120, default 20), and target (omit for default). This compensates well for the schema gap, though it adds no serial format details.

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 and resource ('Blink a device's locator LEDs') plus the intent ('to find it physically'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling write tools like reboot_device and update_device.

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?

It conveys the purpose context (physical location aid) and notes no config change, which implies when it is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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