GLPI MCP Server v2

glpi_get_computer

Fetch full asset data for a single computer, including hardware specifications and installed software.

Instructions

Retorna o contexto completo de UM computador, incluindo especificações de hardware (CPU, memória, disco, rede) e software instalado.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_get_computer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID do computador

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that it returns hardware and software context, but says nothing about safety, permissions/authorization, access sensitivity, or side effects. For a get operation it seems read-only, but that is not explicitly confirmed.

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?

A single concise Portuguese sentence in imperative form ('Retorna...') providing the essential scope. No extraneous details or fluff; but no structural formatting to separate scenarios.

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?

The tool's behavior is moderately described: returns the full context of one computer (hardware and software). However, with no annotations, no output schema, no distinctions between full inventory vs simple details, and no usage conditions/caveats (e.g., requires admin privileges), the completeness is not fully justified. An output schema would have helped express the return contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'id'. However, the description's 'ID do computador' adds no semantic depth beyond the schema's own description. No additional parameters or format hints are given; the method signatures are simple and clear.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'retorna' and defines the resource as 'contexto completo de um computador', listing hardware (CPU, memória, disco, rede) and software. This clearly identifies a single-computer context lookup tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like glpi_list_computers.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description says what it returns but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where the full context is needed versus using list tools or get_computer.

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