Skip to main content
Glama

Get Processors

get_processors
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve CPU and GPU details—socket, model, cores, threads, speed—reported by iLO for a specified HPE ProLiant server to inspect processor inventory.

Instructions

CPUs (socket, model, cores, threads, speed) and GPUs that iLO reports.

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_processors"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful piece of context — the data originates from iLO — but says nothing about failure behavior when iLO is unreachable or how large the response is.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and packs the relevant sub-fields into one parenthetical. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly clipped rather than fully grammatical.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter), annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description conveys the scope of data returned. Little else is strictly required for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the server name comes from list_servers or can be an iLO host/IP. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 and enumerates the returned fields (socket, model, cores, threads, speed, GPUs), so an agent knows this is the hardware-processor counterpart to get_memory and get_storage. It never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the parenthetical detail makes the resource unambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_memory, get_storage or get_server_summary, and no prerequisites beyond the schema's note that the server comes from list_servers. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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