Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpManager MCP Server

OpManager MCP Server

by sachdev27
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

getCategoryList

Retrieve the list of device categories from OpManager to organize and filter network devices by type.

Instructions

getCategoryList

Category: Manage and query network devices

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "apiKey": "<apiKey>"
    },
    "name": "getCategoryList"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesOpManager host address (e.g., 'opmanager.example.com' or 'opmanager.example.com:8061'). Default port is 8061 (HTTPS).
apiKeyYesOpManager API key for authentication

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it gives none. It doesn't indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether categories are hierarchical, or what the response format is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but underspecified. It wastes the first sentence by restating the name, and the second sentence is overly broad. Under-specification is not conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide complete behavioral context. It fails entirely, leaving the agent unable to determine what the tool returns or how to use the results.

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 coverage is 100% with well-described parameters (host and apiKey). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description repeats the tool name 'getCategoryList' and adds only the vague category 'Manage and query network devices'. This is a tautology that does not specify what a 'category' is or what the tool actually retrieves. It fails to distinguish from siblings like getDeviceInfo or listDevices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listDevices, getDeviceSummary, or other query tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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