mcp-redfish

list_storage

Identify storage controllers on a system and retrieve model, firmware version, RAID capabilities, and health status for monitoring.

Instructions

List storage controllers for a system. Returns controller name, model, firmware version, supported RAID types, and health status.

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": "list_storage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`system_id`	Yes	System ID (e.g. '1', 'System.Embedded.1'). Use list_systems to find IDs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the return fields and implies a read-only operation with the verb 'List.' However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The description adds the specific return fields but lacks deeper behavioral context beyond that.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a concise list of return fields. No filler or redundant information; every word contributes value.

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?

For a single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope (for a system), and return content. It lacks explicit error conditions or pagination behavior, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling context make it sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for system_id, including examples and a pointer to list_systems. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles semantics.

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 and resource: 'List storage controllers for a system.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_drives (drives vs. controllers) and list_systems (system enumeration). The returned fields (controller name, model, firmware, RAID types, health) further clarify the scope.

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 when storage controller details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_drives. There's no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server