Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Red Hat Lightspeed MCP

Red Hat Lightspeed MCP

Official
by RedHatInsights
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ocp-advisor__list_rules

Read-only

Lists OCP Advisor rules with recommendation metadata such as risk, impact, tags, and impacted cluster counts. Filter by impacting to see only rules currently affecting clusters.

Instructions

List available OCP Advisor rules and recommendation metadata.

šŸŸ¢ CALL IMMEDIATELY - No information gathering required.

Uses Insights Results Smart Proxy v2 GET /rule. Returned rule identifiers are composite IDs such as ccx_rules_ocp.external.rules.example.report|ERROR_KEY and are suitable for get_rule_content. Each recommendation can include title/description, generic text, publication date, risk/impact/likelihood, tags, disabled state, and impacted cluster counts.

The upstream endpoint does not expose native pagination. limit and offset are documented MCP-side collection bounds applied after retrieving the list. Unknown upstream failures, authorization failures, and malformed impacting values are raised as errors; failed retrieval is not returned as an empty successful list.

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": "ocp-advisor__list_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of rules to return after MCP-side slicing. Range 1-100. Default 20. The upstream /rule endpoint has no native pagination.
offsetNoZero-based rule offset for MCP-side slicing. Default 0. The upstream /rule endpoint has no native pagination.
impactingNoOptional Smart Proxy impacting filter. Omit to list all available rules; true lists only rules currently impacting clusters; false lists rules that are not currently impacting clusters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.0.30

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top of that: the upstream `GET /rule` endpoint has no native pagination and limit/offset are MCP-side post-retrieval slicing, and upstream/auth/malformed-`impacting` failures are raised as errors rather than silently returned as an empty successful list. It also enumerates the recommendation fields (risk/impact/likelihood, tags, disabled state, impacted cluster counts), so an agent knows what a call yields.

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 call-to-action is front-loaded and the remaining paragraphs each carry distinct information (ID format, returnable fields, pagination caveat, error semantics) with little filler. The emoji-decorated directive and some field enumeration are slightly decorative, but the text is well organized and not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter read-only list tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: entry condition, ID format for chaining, pagination semantics, error behavior, and the shape of the returned recommendation metadata. Nothing material is left to inference.

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%, and the schema descriptions already document `limit` (1-100, default 20), `offset`, and the `impacting` tri-state filter, so the description's pagination note largely restates structured data. It adds no syntax, ordering, or interaction guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List available OCP Advisor rules and recommendation metadata'), and the description later states the returned composite ID format and that those IDs are suitable for `get_rule_content`, which clarifies the tool's role in the retrieval chain. It does not differentiate against adjacent list/search siblings such as `advisor__get_active_rules` or `advisor__get_rule_by_text_search`, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The 'CALL IMMEDIATELY - No information gathering required' line is an explicit, actionable entry condition, and the `get_rule_content` reference tells the agent this is the discovery step before content lookup. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives for the competing rule-listing tools, which keeps it below 5.

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