Skip to main content
Glama

Redfish Get

redfish_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Performs a read-only GET on any iLO Redfish URI to retrieve server data not covered by other tools. Use it with a server name and path to query custom or missing resources.

Instructions

Raw read-only GET of any iLO Redfish resource, for data the other tools don't cover.

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "redfish_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRedfish URI starting with /redfish/v1, e.g. /redfish/v1/Systems/1/Bios
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful points beyond them: output is 'raw' (i.e., unnormalized/vendor-shaped rather than a curated model) and the call is scoped to iLO endpoints – both help an agent decide whether to trust or post-process the result.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the differentiator appended rather than buried. Nothing is redundant.

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 and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return values. It conveys purpose, scope, and the fallback rule adequately; it only omits operational caveats (permissions, malformed-path behavior, vendor variability in raw output), which are minor for a thin GET wrapper.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the '/redfish/v1' URI convention and the server-name source. The description adds no further syntax, path-discovery, or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('raw read-only GET') and resource ('any iLO Redfish resource'), and distinguishes itself from the typed siblings by framing itself as the general escape hatch for data the other tools don't cover.

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 phrase 'for data the other tools don't cover' explicitly defines this as a fallback to use only when no typed tool (get_memory, get_storage, get_health, etc.) applies. It stops short of naming a specific 'do not use for X' exclusion, but the fallback framing is clear.

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