Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RMITBLOG

Parallels RAS MCP Server

by RMITBLOG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Providers

ras_infra_get_providers
Read-onlyIdempotent

List cloud and hypervisor providers configured in a RAS farm to verify provider connectivity, check types, and audit multi-cloud config.

Instructions

List all cloud and hypervisor providers configured in the RAS farm — AVD, AWS EC2, Azure, Hyper-V, Nutanix, vCenter, VMware ESXi. Use this to verify provider connectivity, check provider types, or audit multi-cloud config.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows after filtering. Default 50, max 200. Prefer narrowing with `filter` over raising the limit.
fieldsNoTop-level keys to keep on each row. Unknown keys are dropped. Use this to shrink large responses to only the columns you need.
filterNoEquality filter on top-level fields (AND across keys). String values match case-insensitively.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Top-level keys to keep on each row. Unknown keys are dropped. Use this to shrink large responses to only the columns you need.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / filter
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "number",
+      "boolean"
+    ]
+  },
+  "description": "Equality filter on top-level fields (AND across keys). String values match case-insensitively.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max rows after filtering. Default 50, max 200. Prefer narrowing with `filter` over raising the limit.",
+  "maximum": 200,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scoping fact that it returns only configured providers ('all ... configured'), but says nothing about pagination behavior or what per-provider attributes come back.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the enumeration of provider types front-loaded so the agent identifies the resource immediately and the use cases second.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description promises connectivity verification without indicating whether the response actually carries status/connectivity fields — a minor gap for an agent planning to parse results. Safety and parameter concerns are otherwise fully covered by annotations and schema.

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 description coverage is 100% — limit, fields, and filter are each documented with defaults, bounds, and guidance in the schema itself. The description mentions no parameters, so it neither adds nor detracts; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('cloud and hypervisor providers configured in the RAS farm') and enumerates the concrete provider types (AVD, AWS EC2, Azure, Hyper-V, Nutanix, vCenter, ESXi). This makes it unmistakable versus siblings such as ras_infra_get_agents, ras_infra_get_vdi_hostpools, or ras_infra_get_sites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names three use cases: verifying provider connectivity, checking provider types, and auditing multi-cloud config. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name an alternative sibling, so routing is clear but not fully bounded.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools