list_discovered_serversLists discovered Redfish server candidates for review, helping you identify available endpoints before managing infrastructure through the Redfish API.
List discovered Redfish server candidates for review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {},
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral fact: the returned items are unregistered candidates awaiting review, not managed servers. It says nothing about how discovery is populated, freshness/refresh behavior, or result size, which matters for a discovery-list tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is arguably over-terse given the sibling ambiguity, but nothing in it wastes the agent's attention.
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?
For a zero-param list with no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it safely. It remains incomplete on the one thing that matters most here: how its results differ from list_servers and what a 'candidate' record represents.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing about inputs to clarify, and the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor hurts here.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (discovered Redfish server candidates), which is clearer than the bare name. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_servers, leaving the agent to infer that 'discovered candidates' are unregistered/pre-review entries rather than managed servers.
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?
'For review' hints at a workflow but gives no when-to-use rule, no exclusion of list_servers, and no precondition (e.g. call this before onboarding a server). An agent choosing between list_discovered_servers and list_servers gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.