list_serversList configured Redfish servers available for management. Retrieve the set of servers you can manage through Redfish API endpoints.
List configured Redfish servers that can be managed.
Returns: list: A list of 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' and 'Returns: list' imply a read-only operation, and the wording indicates what is returned, but the description does not disclose authentication needs, pagination behavior, or explicit side-effect guarantees.
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?
The first sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the 'Returns:' line redundantly restates the same information rather than adding new value, which keeps this from being a well-structured high-quality description.
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 tool, the description provides the core information: the result is a list of configured Redfish servers. It does not describe the shape of the returned list items or clarify its relationship to list_discovered_servers, leaving some ambiguity for downstream use.
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 has zero parameters and the schema fully expresses that, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 clearly identifies the operation as listing configured Redfish servers and adds the scope qualifiers 'configured' and 'can be managed'. It does not explicitly compare itself with list_discovered_servers, but the qualifier gives enough distinction to be useful.
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 phrasing implies this tool is for already-configured, manageable servers rather than discovered or unconfigured ones. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over list_discovered_servers, leaving the usage guidance mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.