Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proliant-mcp

proliant-mcp

by hjma29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Ilo Info

get_ilo_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve HPE iLO model, firmware version and date, license, Compute Ops Management connection status, and network details (hostname, IP, MAC, DHCP) for a ProLiant server.

Instructions

iLO details: model (iLO 5/6/7), firmware version and date, license, Compute Ops Management connection status, and the iLO's own network (hostname, IP, MAC, DHCP).

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": {
      "server": "<server>"
    },
    "name": "get_ilo_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverYesServer name from list_servers (or its iLO host/IP).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned iLO-specific fields, including Compute Ops Management connection status and iLO network details, but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the relevant iLO details without unnecessary wording. Every phrase contributes to identifying the returned information.

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 simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the information returned, though it could be improved with explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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%, and the single server parameter is fully documented in the schema as a server name from list_servers or its iLO host/IP. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as iLO details and enumerates the specific fields returned: model, firmware, license, Compute Ops Management status, and iLO network information. It is specific enough to distinguish this from general server or network-adapter tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies usage by stating what iLO details are available, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as get_server_summary or get_network_adapters. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and field list.

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