Skip to main content
Glama
mhajder

librenms-mcp

by mhajder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Inventory Device

inventory_device
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a device's hardware inventory from LibreNMS with filters for physical class, parent entity, and pagination controls.

Instructions

Get inventory for a device from LibreNMS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return
offsetNoNumber of results to skip (offset) for pagination
hostnameYesDevice hostname or ID
ent_physical_classNoFilter by entity physical class (e.g., chassis, module, port, powerSupply, fan, sensor)
ent_physical_contained_inNoFilter by parent entity index

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / ent_physical_contained_in / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 100,
+  "description": "Maximum number of results to return",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Number of results to skip (offset) for pagination",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention the hierarchical/structured nature of the response, how filters affect the data, or any quirks such as pagination defaults. The description merely restates the tool's action without expanding on behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It immediately conveys the tool's core action and domain, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, a basic call is feasible. However, the description lacks context about the relationship to inventory_device_flat, when to use filters like ent_physical_class or ent_physical_contained_in, and how the nested output differs from flat alternatives. For a tool with a sibling variant, this is a notable gap.

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 the input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no param-level detail, but since the schema carries the burden, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('inventory for a device'), and the domain ('from LibreNMS'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool inventory_device_flat, which likely returns a flattened version of the same inventory, so some ambiguity remains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus inventory_device_flat or other inventory-related tools such as sensors_list or health_list. The description implies usage through its wording but provides no explicit context, alternatives, or exclusions.

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