Retrieve a target server's boot order, one-time or persistent boot override, and allowed override targets for Redfish/IPMI BMC management.
Boot order, one-time/persistent boot override and allowed override targets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | target name from list_targets |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description restates the returned content but adds no behavioral context such as failure modes for an unknown target, whether overrides require elevated privilege, or what the response shape looks like. For a read-only getter the bar is low, but this adds almost nothing beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact clause with no wasted words and the key content front-loaded. It is a bare noun fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens structure but does not dilute the signal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A simple one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema; the description enumerates the returned fields (boot order, overrides, override targets), which usefully compensates for the absent output schema. Only edge-case behavior is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('target name from list_targets'), the schema already carries full semantics, so 3 is the baseline. The description's phrase 'allowed override targets' refers to return content rather than clarifying the target parameter, so it adds no parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource and enumerates its contents ('boot order', 'one-time/persistent boot override', 'allowed override targets'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_power_state or get_sensors. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve/read'), but the fragment is unambiguous about what data the tool surfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools. The only implied guidance is that 'target' comes from list_targets, which lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed