mcp-redfish

list_drives

Retrieve physical drive details for a storage controller, including capacity, protocol, media type, health, and serial number.

Instructions

List physical drives for a storage controller. Returns capacity, protocol (SAS/SATA/NVMe), MediaType (SSD/HDD), health, and serial number.

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>",
      "storage_id": "<storage_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_drives"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`system_id`	Yes	System ID (e.g. '1', 'System.Embedded.1'). Use list_systems to find IDs.
`storage_id`	Yes	Storage controller ID (e.g. 'RAID.Integrated.1-1', 'AHCI.Embedded.1-1'). Use list_storage to find IDs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (capacity, protocol, MediaType, health, serial number), which is useful behavioral context for a read-only list operation. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but these are less critical for a simple list.

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 two-sentence structure that is front-loaded with the action and immediately lists the return fields. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It covers the core information needed to invoke and interpret the results.

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%, with clear descriptions for both system_id and storage_id, including an example and reference to list_storage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, 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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a specific resource 'physical drives for a storage controller', and clarifies the output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_storage, which lists controllers rather than physical drives.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is implied by the resource 'physical drives', but there is no direct guidance such as 'use when you need to inspect drive health' or comparison to list_storage.

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

Deploy Server