Skip to main content
Glama
RedHatInsights

Red Hat Lightspeed MCP

Official

Returns life cycle dates for all RHEL majors and minors.

planning__get_rhel_lifecycle
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve lifecycle dates for all RHEL major and minor versions, including support end dates and extended support types (EUS/E4S/ELS).

Instructions

Returns life cycle dates for all RHEL majors and minors.

🟢 CALL IMMEDIATELY - No information gathering required.

Use this tool when the user asks for RHEL versions and lifecycle timelines, including major versions, minor versions, or extended support types (EUS/E4S/ELS).

For "major-only" versions and timelines (for example, "RHEL 8 lifecycle overview"), call this tool and then focus on rows where minor is null. Filtering is performed by you, not the MCP tool.

For a specific minor (for example, "RHEL 9.2 EUS lifecycle"), call this tool and then focus on entries matching the requested major and minor. Interpretation of date windows or version selection is done by you.

When the user mentions dates or "expiring within N days", call this tool and interpret the start_date / end_date values to identify relevant versions. Interpretation of date windows or version selection is done by you.

Returns: dict: A response object containing: - data: A list of RHEL lifecycle records - name (str): System name - start_date (str): Start date of support - end_date (str): End date of standard support - support_status (str): Status of support, e.g. retired, upcoming_release, supported - display_name (str): How the system should be presented to the customer - major (int): Major system version - minor (int): Minor system version - end_date_e4s (str | null): End date of Update Services for SAP Solutions support - end_date_els (str | null): End date of Extended Life-cycle Support - end_date_eus (str | null): End date of Extended Update Support

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description reinforces this with 'CALL IMMEDIATELY - No information gathering required' and details the return structure, adding context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with headings, bullet points, and emojis. It front-loads the core purpose and call-to-action. Some redundancy exists, but overall it is easy to scan and interpret.

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?

Given no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns, how to interpret results for different use cases, and that it is a safe read operation. The return structure is detailed in the description, making it fully self-contained.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it returns life cycle dates for all RHEL majors and minors, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like planning__get_appstreams_lifecycle by focusing on RHEL, and the extensive usage guidance reinforces the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (e.g., user asks for RHEL versions and lifecycle timelines) and provides step-by-step instructions for different query types (major-only, specific minor, date windows). It also says to call immediately with no information gathering, which is excellent guidance.

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/RedHatInsights/insights-mcp'

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