idrac_memoryList memory modules (DIMMs) with slot, size, type, speed, manufacturer, part number and health; optionally include empty slots to audit memory inventory and identify faulty or missing DIMMs.
List memory modules (DIMMs) with slot, size, type, speed, manufacturer, part number and health. Empty slots are hidden unless include_empty is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_empty | No | Also list empty DIMM slots. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default filtering rule that empty DIMM slots are suppressed unless include_empty is true, plus the exact result fields. It does not mention pagination or error/auth conditions, but neither is material for a single-flag read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler: the first establishes scope and returned fields, the second covers the one behavioral modifier. Information is front-loaded so an agent can decide after the first clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the default filtering behavior, which is everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result. Nothing material is left unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the observable consequence of the flag ('Empty slots are hidden unless include_empty is true'), making the default behavior explicit rather than just restating the flag name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('List memory modules (DIMMs)') and enumerates exactly which attributes come back (slot, size, type, speed, manufacturer, part number, health). The resource is unambiguous relative to siblings like idrac_processors or idrac_storage, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: it's clearly a hardware-inventory read, and the include_empty sentence tells you how to see empty slots. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as idrac_system_overview for aggregate hardware summaries, leaving the agent to infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.