Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proliant-mcp

proliant-mcp

by hjma29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Fleet Summary

get_fleet_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a summary for every configured HPE ProLiant server at once, with unreachable servers returning individual errors so the whole request still completes.

Instructions

get_server_summary for every configured server at once. Unreachable servers are returned with an error field instead of failing the whole call.

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": "get_fleet_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: unreachable servers surface an `error` field rather than aborting the whole call, which tells the agent how partial failure behaves. Latency or scaling characteristics of a fleet-wide fan-out are not mentioned.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the fleet-wide scope is front-loaded ahead of the error-handling detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is rightly omitted, and the error-field note covers the one non-obvious result behavior. A brief hint about volume or latency across a large fleet would make it fully complete for a fan-out tool.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline applies. It correctly avoids restating an empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource and explicitly defines scope as 'get_server_summary for every configured server at once', which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling get_server_summary that targets a single server.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'every configured server at once' phrasing implies the fleet-wide use case and contrasts implicitly with the single-server sibling, giving an agent enough to choose between them. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing statement.

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