Systems Manager

Smart

sm_storage_health_smart

Check physical disk SMART health, BMC drive-slot faults, and RAID disk state, correlating them to distinguish link or aging faults from media wear.

Instructions

Smart (sm_storage_health). Physical disk + BMC drive-fault health: SMART (incl. megaraid passthrough), BMC/IPMI drive-slot faults, and RAID physical-disk state — correlated so a BMC-flagged disk with clean SMART media reads as a link/aging fault, not media wear (CONCEPT:SM-OS.governance.sys-8/SYS-1.5).

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": "sm_storage_health_smart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.5Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations state readOnlyHint=false, but the description frames the tool as a health/diagnostic operation and does not explain any non-read-only behavior, permissions, side effects, or output characteristics. It adds useful correlation context, but the non-read-only annotation gap remains unexplained.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the main subject before elaborating on the correlated health interpretation. The internal concept reference is slightly noisy, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 no-parameter diagnostic tool, the description gives enough context to understand what is inspected and how signals are correlated. However, with no output schema and no explanation of return shape or operational caveats, it is only minimally complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The empty closed schema is sufficient, and this dimension reaches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 specific data sources (SMART, BMC/IPMI, RAID physical-disk state) and explains the correlation outcome, which distinguishes it from generic health tools. It is clear what the tool examines, though it lacks an explicit leading verb such as 'retrieve' or 'report'.

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?

The description explains what is correlated and why, but it does not say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as sm_storage_health_faults, sm_storage_health_raid, or sm_storage_health_report. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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