Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proliant-mcp

proliant-mcp

by hjma29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List Servers

list_servers
Read-onlyIdempotent

List configured ProLiant servers with their names and iLO host addresses. Use it to discover managed servers before reading inventory or health data; credentials are never returned.

Instructions

List the configured ProLiant servers (name and iLO host). Credentials are never returned.

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": "list_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond that — credentials are never returned — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior when no servers are configured.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the security note appended. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs to invoke it. The only mild gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the other fleet-level tools.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify in parameter space.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the configured ProLiant servers') and even names the fields returned (name, iLO host), which lets an agent distinguish it from the per-server getters in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with fleet-level siblings like get_fleet_summary or get_server_summary.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing configured servers is naturally the first step before calling per-server tools like get_health or get_ilo_info. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the fleet/summary tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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