Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
librenms-mcp

librenms-mcp

by mhajder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Device Parents Set

device_parents_set
Idempotent

Set or replace a device's dependency parents to control alert suppression in LibreNMS; include all parents the device should keep because the list is synced.

Instructions

Set the dependency parents of a device.

Parents drive alert suppression: a device whose parent is down is not alerted on its own. LibreNMS replaces the device's parents with the given ones (it syncs the set), so pass every parent the device should keep. A device cannot be its own parent.

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>",
      "parent_ids": "<parent_ids>"
    },
    "name": "device_parents_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostnameYesDevice hostname or device ID
parent_idsYesComma-separated parent device IDs or hostnames; replaces the current parents

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.13.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the description correctly focuses on what those flags cannot convey: the replacement-sync semantics, the alert-suppression consequence of parenting, and the self-parent validation rule. It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior, which is the remaining gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rationale follows in descending order of importance. The phrase 'it syncs the set' largely restates the following sentence about passing every parent, a mild redundancy but not enough to hurt readability.

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 an output schema, full parameter documentation, and safety annotations already present, the description covers the essential domain semantics an agent needs: replacement behavior, the alert-suppression effect, and the self-parent constraint. Adding permission or failure-mode context would make it complete for a write operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so hostname and parent_ids are already fully documented, including that parent_ids replaces the current set. The description reinforces that replacement constraint with 'pass every parent the device should keep' but adds no new format, ordering, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 first line gives a specific verb and resource: setting the dependency parents of a device. The follow-up sentence about replacing the current parent set further distinguishes this from a purely additive operation. It stops short of naming device_parents_clear as the removal counterpart, which would make the boundary fully explicit.

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: you call it when a device should have dependency parents. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer device_parents_clear, or on prerequisites such as both devices existing. The reader can infer the workflow but is not routed between alternatives.

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