Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proliant-mcp

proliant-mcp

by hjma29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Network Adapters

get_network_adapters
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves HPE ProLiant host network adapter details from iLO, including model, slot, firmware, MAC, link speed, and LLDP switch/port information.

Instructions

Host network adapters: model, part number, slot, firmware, and ports (MAC, link, speed, LLDP neighbor switch/port when available).

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_network_adapters"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and mutability are fully covered by structured data. The description contributes one piece of behavioral context beyond that: LLDP neighbor switch/port is returned only "when available", signalling variable data completeness. It says nothing about auth requirements, lookup failures for an unknown server, or rate limits, so it is additive but thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the return fields, with zero filler. It is a fragment without a verb, which makes it slightly less readable than a full clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 is a single-parameter read with an output schema that already defines return structure, so the description only needs to convey scope and contents, which it does. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the argument, leaving no material gap for an agent to fill.

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 already documented as a name from list_servers or an iLO host/IP. The description adds no meaning about that parameter, so this lands at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 names a specific resource (host network adapters) and enumerates the exact attributes returned: model, part number, slot, firmware, and ports with MAC, link, speed and LLDP neighbor data. An agent can distinguish this from get_memory, get_processors, and get_storage purely by resource. It stops short of 5 because there is no explicit verb and no statement of how it differs from any overlapping sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission statement, and no mention of an alternative tool or condition under which to prefer one. The only invocation hint, that the server argument comes from list_servers or an iLO host/IP, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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