Skip to main content
Glama
Red5d

Beszel MCP Server

by Red5d

list_systems

Retrieve paginated lists of monitored systems in Beszel with filtering and sorting options to manage infrastructure visibility.

Instructions

List all monitored systems in Beszel.

Args: page: Page number (default: 1) per_page: Number of results per page (default: 50) filter: PocketBase filter string (e.g., "name ~ 'server'" or "status = 'active'") sort: Sort order (e.g., "-created" for descending by created date)

Returns: Dictionary containing paginated list of systems with their status and metadata

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
per_pageNo
filterNo
sortNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool() that implements the list_systems tool. It authenticates with the PocketBase client and retrieves a paginated list of systems, supporting filters and sorting.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def list_systems(
        page: int = 1,
        per_page: int = 50,
        filter: Optional[str] = None,
        sort: Optional[str] = None,
    ) -> dict:
        """List all monitored systems in Beszel.
        
        Args:
            page: Page number (default: 1)
            per_page: Number of results per page (default: 50)
            filter: PocketBase filter string (e.g., "name ~ 'server'" or "status = 'active'")
            sort: Sort order (e.g., "-created" for descending by created date)
        
        Returns:
            Dictionary containing paginated list of systems with their status and metadata
        """
        client = get_client()
        await ensure_authenticated(client)
        
        return await client.get_list(
            collection="systems",
            page=page,
            per_page=per_page,
            filter=filter,
            sort=sort,
        )
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and filtering capabilities, which is useful, but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose statement. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the parameter explanations are necessary given schema gaps, and the return statement clarifies output. It could be slightly more concise by integrating examples more tightly, but overall it's 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage but an output schema exists, the description does a good job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. The output schema handles return values, so that's covered. However, for a list operation with filtering/pagination, more guidance on usage scenarios and limitations would improve completeness.

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 description provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters beyond what the schema offers (which has 0% description coverage). It explains 'page' and 'per_page' control pagination, 'filter' accepts PocketBase filter strings with examples, and 'sort' controls ordering with an example. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all monitored systems in Beszel'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alert_history' or 'list_alerts' by focusing on systems rather than alerts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_containers' or 'query_system_stats' beyond the resource name.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_containers' or 'query_system_stats'. The description only states what it does, without context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Red5d/beszel-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server