list_serversLists configured Redfish servers available for management, helping identify endpoints to query and control infrastructure through the Redfish API.
List configured Redfish servers that can be managed.
| 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: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it discloses little: no statement about read-only safety, whether the call hits the network or fails when servers are unreachable, or the shape of the result. 'That can be managed' adds a mild filter criterion, but nothing about failure modes or result scope.
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 restatement of the tool name. Every word ('configured', 'can be managed') carries scope meaning.
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-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description still omits anything about what a 'server' entry contains or whether results are limited or paged. Adequate to call the tool, but thin for an agent that needs to decide between it and list_discovered_servers.
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 for the description to document and the baseline applies. No parameter-related gap exists.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('configured Redfish servers') with a scope qualifier ('that can be managed'). It implicitly contrasts with list_discovered_servers via 'configured', but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
The word 'configured' hints at the boundary versus list_discovered_servers, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer the routing decision from a single adjective.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.