Monitoring AIops

nodes_list

Read-only

List SolarWinds Orion nodes and filter by status (Up, Down, Warning) to monitor network health and pinpoint outages.

Instructions

[READ] List SolarWinds nodes, optionally filtered by status.

Args: status: Optional Orion status filter (1=Up, 2=Down, 3=Warning). 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": "nodes_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with a '[READ]' tag. It adds the useful detail that target comes from config and defaults when omitted, but discloses nothing about return volume, pagination, or ordering. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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-loads the core action in one sentence, then lists the two args compactly. Slightly redundant to repeat '[READ]' when readOnlyHint is already set, but there is no wasted prose.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters and the default behavior. It is nearly complete; only pagination/return-shape hints are missing, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 the parameter burden, and it largely does: it decodes the status codes (1=Up, 2=Down, 3=Warning) and explains that target is a config name that defaults when omitted. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/string schema, though it omits what happens with invalid status 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 and resource ('List SolarWinds nodes') with a clear scope modifier ('optionally filtered by status'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like node_status or list_unmanaged, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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: list nodes, optionally filter by status, and omit target for the default. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as node_status or list_unmanaged, so the agent must infer the choice.

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