Skip to main content
Glama
mhajder

librenms-mcp

by mhajder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Services For Device

services_for_device
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve services for a device from LibreNMS. Filter by state or service type to pinpoint warnings and critical alerts.

Instructions

Get services for a device from LibreNMS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return
stateNoFilter by state: 0=Ok, 1=Warning, 2=Critical
offsetNoNumber of results to skip (offset) for pagination
hostnameYesDevice hostname or ID
service_typeNoFilter by service type (SQL LIKE pattern)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.3
    • 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / state / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate basic safety behavior. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations—it fails to mention filtering semantics, pagination, or any operational side effects. The bar is lower with annotations present, but the description still contributes nothing behavioral.

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 description is a single tightly-worded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity given that the schema and output schema carry the technical details, though it could have added sibling differentiation without harming conciseness.

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 rich annotations, a fully described input schema, and an output schema present, the overall context is largely complete: safety profile, all parameters, and return structure are available. The description supplies the core purpose and device scoping; only explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings is missing, which is a minor gap given the sibling list.

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 fully documents all five parameters including the state filter meanings and service_type LIKE behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Get services for a device from LibreNMS' clearly states a specific operation and resource scope, distinguishing it from generic service tools like services_list by requiring a device context. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or contrast its scope, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for a device' implicitly signals that this tool should be used when services need to be scoped to one device, hinting at a difference from services_list. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternative mention, or exclusion, so the guidance is only implied.

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