idrac_virtual_mediaCheck the virtual CD/DVD and removable disk devices on an iDRAC to identify attached images and verify firmware support for Redfish image attachment.
Show the iDRAC virtual media devices (virtual CD/DVD and removable disk): whether an image is attached, which one, and whether this firmware supports attaching images through Redfish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that the response also reports whether the firmware supports attaching images through Redfish — a capability flag an agent would not otherwise anticipate.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the resource and then enumerating the three facts returned. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the salient returned facts (attachment presence, which image, Redfish attach support), which is exactly what an agent needs before calling. For a zero-parameter read tool, nothing material is missing.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless read with no filtering or selection arguments, and nothing in the text misleads about inputs.
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?
Specific verb ('Show') plus a specific resource ('iDRAC virtual media devices') with a clarifying parenthetical naming the two device kinds (virtual CD/DVD and removable disk). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like idrac_storage or idrac_boot_settings, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from them.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is only implied: an agent reads this when it needs current virtual media attachment state. Given the narrow, unambiguous resource, that implied usage is adequate but not instructive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.