Monitoring AIops

list_unmanaged

Read-only

Retrieve unmanaged nodes and future unmanage windows to identify monitoring gaps in SolarWinds Orion or PRTG.

Instructions

[READ] Nodes unmanaged now or with a scheduled future unmanage window.

Args: target: SolarWinds 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": "list_unmanaged"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the leading '[READ]' marker largely repeats that. The description does add genuine scope context by clarifying that 'unmanaged' includes nodes with a scheduled future unmanage window, which is useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation, but it says nothing about pagination, auth, or result shape.

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?

Brief and front-loaded, with the core resource description first and the parameter note after. The 'Args:' block is a slightly clunky but efficient way to attach the parameter meaning.

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 simple single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and how to scope the target. Little is missing for correct invocation, though the lack of any pointer to related mutation tools is a minor gap.

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 carries the param burden and does so reasonably: it explains that target is a SolarWinds target name from config and that omitting it selects the default. That meaningfully supplements the bare schema, though it doesn't clarify accepted formats.

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 clear resource (nodes unmanaged now or with a scheduled future unmanage window) and implies the list verb via the tool name. It distinguishes itself conceptually from the unmanage_node/remanage_node siblings by emphasizing the read/listing nature, though it does not name them directly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like unmanage_node, remanage_node, or list_muted. Usage is only inferable from the name and the resource described. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool pointers.

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