Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
baramundi MCP Server

baramundi MCP Server

by mikewegmann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

report_inactive_devices

Identify devices inactive for a specified number of days, sorted by last seen time. Filter by OS type and limit results.

Instructions

    Findet Geräte, die seit einer bestimmten Anzahl von Tagen nicht mehr gesehen wurden.

    Args:
        days: Schwellwert in Tagen (Standard: 30).
        type: Gerätetyp — 'windows' (Standard), 'mac' oder 'linux'.
        limit: Maximale Anzahl zurückgegebener Geräte (Standard: 50).

    Returns:
        Objekt mit 'total' und 'devices' (sortiert nach daysSinceLastSeen, absteigend).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "report_inactive_devices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
typeNowindows
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the return object structure (total, devices sorted by daysSinceLastSeen descending). No side effects described but likely a read-only report.

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?

Very concise docstring format with Args and Returns. Every line provides necessary information with no fluff.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return format. Lacks examples or edge cases, but for a simple report tool it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for all three parameters: days threshold, device type options, and output limit. Defaults are stated again but with context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool finds devices not seen for a number of days (specific verb and resource). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_devices or search_devices by focusing on inactivity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for finding inactive devices but does not mention when not to use or recommend other tools.

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