Monitoring AIops

node_status

Read-only

Check the health of a SolarWinds Orion node by caption or IP, returning status details to verify availability and detect issues.

Instructions

[READ] One SolarWinds node's health by caption or IP (Orion.Nodes).

Args: name_or_ip: Node caption or IP address to look up. target: SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name_or_ip": "<name_or_ip>"
    },
    "name": "node_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`name_or_ip`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the [READ] tag is largely redundant. The description adds the Orion.Nodes source table, which is modestly useful context, but discloses nothing about return format, error behavior for an unknown caption/IP, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] marker and purpose, followed by a tight two-parameter arg list. Nearly every token earns its place; no wasted preamble.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and only readOnlyHint, the description never says what 'health' actually returns (status, CPU, memory, threshold state), leaving the agent blind to the response shape. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for interpretation.

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 has to carry parameter meaning and it does: name_or_ip is defined as a caption OR IP address (resolving a real ambiguity), and target as a SolarWinds config target with a default. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether caption matching is exact or partial.

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 ([READ]) plus resource ('One SolarWinds node's health') and the source table (Orion.Nodes), making the singular lookup distinct from the bulk nodes_list sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the scope contrast is obvious.

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 only implied by the singular-lookup framing; there is no explicit 'use this when you need one node vs. nodes_list when you need many' routing. The only real guidance is the target note ('omit for the default'), which is schema-level, not task-level.

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