Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-redfish

mcp-redfish

by fredriksknese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_chassis

Retrieve all chassis managed by this BMC, including type, manufacturer, model, serial number, and status.

Instructions

List all chassis managed by this BMC. Returns ChassisType, Manufacturer, Model, SerialNumber, and Status for each chassis.

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": "list_chassis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields: 'Returns ChassisType, Manufacturer, Model, SerialNumber, and Status for each chassis.' This goes beyond a bare statement and reveals expected output content. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only list operation, this is sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

The description is a single, effective sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no unnecessary words, and clearly states the output.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It states what the tool lists and what it returns. There is no missing information that would hinder correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none. It does not need to explain anything beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'List all chassis managed by this BMC.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chassis'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_systems and get_chassis by specifying the chassis resource.

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 description implies usage for enumerating all chassis on the BMC, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like get_chassis (for a specific chassis) or list_systems (for systems). No when/when-not guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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