Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-redfish

mcp-redfish

by fredriksknese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_bios_settings

Retrieve current BIOS attributes and settings for a specific system, returning all configuration parameters to support inventory and troubleshooting.

Instructions

Get current BIOS attributes and settings for a system. Returns all BIOS configuration parameters.

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": {
      "system_id": "<system_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_bios_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
system_idYesSystem ID (e.g. '1', 'System.Embedded.1'). Use list_systems to find IDs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and states it 'Returns all BIOS configuration parameters,' which is transparent about the action. However, it lacks details on permissions, potential failures, or output structure, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence adds a slight redundancy ('Returns all BIOS configuration parameters') but is not wasteful. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers its core purpose and return value sufficiently. It does not mention any prerequisites or edge cases, but these are less critical for a straightforward get operation.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (system_id), including an example and guidance to use list_systems. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current BIOS attributes and settings for a system'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which target BIOS settings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage is implied: if you need BIOS configuration, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The schema provides a hint to use list_systems for IDs, but that is not in the description.

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