Lists configured BMCs with addresses, tags, and enabled dangerous operation classes so you can review access before issuing commands.
List configured BMCs, their addresses, tags and which dangerous operation classes are enabled for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what each listed entry contains, notably the enabled dangerous operation classes, which is the kind of context an agent needs to decide which target to act on. It does not address ordering, pagination, or the odd idempotentHint=false, which holds it below a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (addresses, tags, dangerous operation classes) conveys distinct information about the result set.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back. It could go slightly further by framing this as the entry point that produces the target identifiers the sibling tools consume, but nothing essential 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax the description could add, and it does not need to.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('configured BMCs') and even enumerates the returned fields (addresses, tags, enabled dangerous operation classes). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like get_power_state or get_inventory, which operate on a single BMC rather than enumerating targets, though it never explicitly states that contrast.
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?
There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or the get_* siblings. An agent could infer this is a discovery step before querying a specific BMC, but the description provides no guidance text to that effect.
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