Uyuni MCP Server

Official

by uyuni-project

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.2
Disambiguation4/5
The tools have overlapping purposes, especially around updates (multiple tools for checking updates on individual systems and fleet), but descriptions clearly differentiate them by context (compact vs paginated, fleet vs individual). Some ambiguity remains for agents unfamiliar with the specific use cases.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_systems_by_name, get_system_details, list_systems, summarize_fleet_updates). No deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
18 tools is well-scoped for the domain of system management (systems, groups, updates, events, actions, activation keys). Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary duplication.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers reading and querying (systems, updates, events, groups, activation keys) comprehensively, but lacks tools for performing actions (e.g., applying updates, rebooting, modifying groups). This may be intentional for a read-only server, but it leaves gaps for full lifecycle management.
Average 4.2/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 8 of 18 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 39 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses pagination with 'system_limit' capped at 200 and a paged list response, but no annotations are present. It does not cover safety, authentication, or side effects, so the burden falls on the description, which is partially met.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and efficiently add input/output specifics without redundancy.
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?
Given 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers inputs, pagination, and output structure ('items' and 'meta'). It lacks sibling differentiation but is otherwise adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'system_limit' and 'system_offset' as optional controls for pagination, including the limit cap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Summarize fleet update status,' clearly defining the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'summarize_system_updates,' which likely focuses on individual systems.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'summarize_system_updates' or other fleet analysis tools. The description lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description states that it returns an errata list but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, error handling, pagination, or side effects. The constraint on system_id is noted but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is concise: three short sentences covering purpose, input, and output. No extraneous words and information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, with output schema), the description covers the essential information: input requirement and return type. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination or default behavior, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for detailed return documentation.
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?
The schema has one integer parameter (system_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying 'numeric system_id only', reinforcing the type constraint. However, it does not explain the parameter's purpose beyond its name, so it adds moderate value.
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?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (unscheduled errata), and the scope (for one system). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_system_updates or list_systems_needing_update_for_cve by specifying 'unscheduled errata'.
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?
The description provides a constraint (numeric system_id only) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. The input constraint is helpful but lacks context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It notes that 'limit is capped at 500', which is a constraint, and describes the return format. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but incomplete for a read-only tool.
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?
Description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one listing inputs and constraints, one for returns. No unnecessary words, efficient structure.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, inputs, a constraint (limit cap), and return structure. Could mention pagination or error handling, but overall complete enough for use.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (ip_address, limit, offset) and explains the limit cap, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the format of ip_address or the behavior of offset, leaving gaps.
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's purpose: find systems by IP address. It uses a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'systems by IP', distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_systems_by_name' and 'list_systems'.
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?
Description implies usage for IP-based search and mentions optional parameters (limit, offset) for pagination, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_systems_by_name' or 'list_systems'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description states inputs and outputs explicitly, which is moderately transparent for a simple read operation. However, it does not mention permissions or other behavioral constraints.
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: two sentences conveying purpose and return structure. Front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.
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?
Given 0 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential elements. It adds return field details beyond the schema, which is helpful. Could mention ordering or limits, but not critical for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema; description confirms 'Inputs: none.' Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no additional parameter info, but none is needed.
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?
The description clearly states 'List system groups,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_group_systems (which lists systems in a group) and other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; the description discloses that the tool lists 'active' systems, provides return fields, and caps limit at 500. However, it does not explain what 'active' means, pagination behavior beyond limit/offset, or permissions required.
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?
The description is extremely concise with three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide parameter and return structure details without unnecessary 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?
Given the tool is a simple list operation with an output schema, the description covers input constraints, return fields, and a practical usage hint. It lacks only minor details like error handling or filtering capabilities.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by noting limit is capped at 500 and inputs are optional. However, it does not explain offset semantics or expected data types beyond the schema defaults.
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?
The description clearly states 'List active systems in Uyuni,' specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a general listing, and provides a practical hint about using system_id for other tools.
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?
The description mentions optional inputs and a limit cap, but does not explicitly clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_systems_by_name or check_all_systems_for_updates. The note about system_id offers some integration guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses behavioral traits such as limit capped at 500 and that returned items are unique. However, lacks information on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. No annotations provided to complement or contradict.
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?
Three short sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main purpose, followed by parameter summary and return format.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description sufficiently explains inputs and return structure. For a filtered list tool with pagination, it covers essential aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter (cve_identifier required, limit and offset optional with defaults and cap). Adds context beyond raw schema.
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 lists systems affected by a CVE, with specific inputs and outputs. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_systems (list all systems) and list_systems_needing_reboot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use list_systems_needing_update_for_cve vs check_all_systems_for_updates or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description compensates well by disclosing pagination behavior, filter exact-match nature, and limit cap. It avoids contradictions and adds value beyond defaults.
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?
Extremely concise: three sentences front-loading the core action, then detailing parameters and behavior with no unnecessary words.
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 essential aspects (pagination, filters, defaults) for a list operation. Output schema is present, so return values are implicit. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or rate limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to all parameters: explains usage of limit, offset, exact-match filters for action_types and scheduler, and suggests values from meta fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries scheduled actions, effectively communicating the verb-resource relationship. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on systems and updates.
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?
Provides guidance on optional filters and pagination (limit capped at 500, use meta.next_offset). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it returns a list of system_id and system_name, indicating a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling (e.g., if the group does not exist), or whether the list is exhaustive. No annotations provided.
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?
The description is very concise, front-loading the purpose and immediately covering inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list operation), the description covers the essential elements. However, it could mention that the group must exist or provide examples, and it does not explain the output schema beyond field names. Sibling tools add context but are not referenced.
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?
The description mentions the parameter 'group_name' but adds no semantic details beyond its name. The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate with format or constraints. It does not specify whether it expects a display name or an ID.
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?
The description clearly states it lists systems in one group, specifies the input parameter, and describes the output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_systems (all systems) and other specific queries.
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?
The description implies usage for listing systems in a single group, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., use list_systems for cross-group listings). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the system_limit is capped at 200 for paging, and the return structure includes items and meta. It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but the information given is sufficient for basic understanding.
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?
The description is concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose and then add usage and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the output schema exists (though not shown) and the description mentions the return format, the key behaviors are covered. The five optional parameters have defaults, and the sibling tools are diverse, but the description sufficiently orients the agent for basic invocation. Minor gaps in parameter semantics prevent a perfect score.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all five parameters and gives partial semantics: include_updates adds per-system items, system_limit is capped. However, it does not explain include_cves, system_offset, or updates_per_system in detail, leaving some meaning implicit.
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?
The description clearly states the tool checks all active systems for pending updates, using the verb 'check' and resource 'all active systems'. It further clarifies it's best for fleet scan, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target individual systems or summaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use the tool ('best for fleet scan') and how to configure it ('set include_updates=true'), but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools. This gives clear usage guidance without exhaustive exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('items' with specific fields) and pagination constraints (limit capped at 500). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but for a list tool this is adequate.
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?
The description is very concise: three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds necessary details without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (list with pagination) and the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, pagination behavior, and cap. It is adequate for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description adds that `limit` is capped at 500, which goes beyond the schema. It also explains that `limit` and `offset` are inputs for pagination, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists systems requiring reboot. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('systems that require reboot'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_systems' (all systems) and 'check_all_systems_for_updates'.
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?
The description implies usage (when you need to see systems needing reboot) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses return type ('update counts and meta') and accepted advisory types, but doesn't mention permissions or side effects. Adequate but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with 5 sentences, front-loaded purpose. Minor redundancy ('Inputs:' prefix) but overall efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters and existence of output schema, description covers inputs, resolution, and output type. Sufficient for selection and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description adds significant meaning: explains 'system_identifier' can be name or id and suggests resolution method, lists valid advisory_types values, and marks it optional. Adds value beyond schema.
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?
The description clearly states 'Summarize pending updates for one system', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'summarize_fleet_updates' by specifying 'one system'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Best for counts only' and provides a resolution step using 'find_systems_by_name', guiding when to use and how to prep inputs. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format (list of objects with key and description) and states no inputs. With no annotations provided, it does not mention side effects, authentication, or pagination, but for a simple read-only list, it is minimally sufficient.
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?
The description consists of two short, purposeful sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then details inputs and outputs efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and the presence of an output schema (as per context), the description adequately covers the return format. There are no missing details for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. A score of 4 is appropriate as the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'activation keys', and specifies the scope 'available to the current user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which deal with systems, groups, updates) by focusing on a unique resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving the user's activation keys. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but given the unique purpose and zero parameters, it is clear and adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that by default CVEs are omitted for lower token usage, that it returns a compact update list with counts and meta, and that `system_identifier` can be name or ID. Could mention if any side effects or permissions needed, but as a read operation this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Multiple sentences but each provides useful information. Front-loaded with purpose. Could trim phrasing, but no redundancy. Efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter and existence of output schema (though not shown), the description covers what the tool returns, default behavior, alternatives, and input handling. No gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 1 parameter with 0% coverage. Description adds meaning by clarifying that `system_identifier` accepts either system name or system ID, with preference for ID, and explains the fallback. This compensates well for the bare schema.
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 'Get pending updates for one system' (verb + resource). It distinguishes from sibling `query_system_updates` by noting this is for a compact default view, while the sibling handles pagination and CVE expansion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use this tool ('Best for compact default update view') and when to use alternatives ('For pagination and CVE expansion, use query_system_updates'). Also provides resolution path for name not found via `find_systems_by_name`, and recommends preferring `system_id` over `system_name`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details pagination behavior (limit <=0 returns no items, positive limit capped at 200), input resolution via another tool, and return structure (updates and meta).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is informative and reasonably concise, around 100 words. It starts with the core purpose and flows logically into inputs, then a usage note, then pagination behavior. Could benefit from slight restructuring for easier scanning (e.g., bullet points), but overall effective.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers inputs, pagination behavior, and return structure. It mentions the output schema indirectly. It does not cover error cases or edge cases beyond pagination, but the output schema likely covers the return format.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: system_identifier (name or id), limit, offset, include_cves, advisory_types. It also explains the effect of limit and offset, providing meaning well beyond the raw schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool queries pending updates for one system. It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('pending updates'), and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_all_systems_for_updates (which handles all systems).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use this tool, including resolving system names via find_systems_by_name and noting it is best for pagination and optional CVE expansion. However, it does not explicitly contrast with every sibling (e.g., get_system_updates), so it is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a newest-first event list with specific fields (id, history_type, status, summary, completed). It mentions the input parameters and their defaults, but does not describe edge cases like system not existing (though it does handle name not found via resolution). Overall, it gives sufficient behavioral insight for a read-only listing tool.
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?
The description is compact yet informative, using five sentences to convey purpose, inputs, error handling, return format, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return format (newest-first list with five fields). It covers pagination parameters, error resolution, and sibling tool alternatives. For a list tool with 4 parameters, it is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that system_identifier can be system_name or system_id, and that offset, limit, and earliest_date are optional. It also provides guidance on resolving name not found. However, it does not specify the format for earliest_date, which could be ambiguous. Still, it adds significant meaning beyond the sparse schema.
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?
The description clearly states 'List events for one system,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_system_event_details, which is for a single event, and other system listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it lists events for one system, and advises using get_system_event_details for individual events. It also includes error handling steps: if the system identifier is a name not found, resolve with find_systems_by_name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the limit cap of 500, the return structure (items with system_name and system_id, plus meta), and implies a read-only nature by searching. It doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive, but the context suggests it. Overall adequate.
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?
The description is very concise at four sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, enumerates inputs clearly, and includes behavioral constraints and output format without any filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (as per context signals), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints (limit cap), output structure, and workflow hint. It is complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It identifies 'name' as hostname, clarifies that 'limit' and 'offset' are optional, and adds that 'limit' is capped at 500. This provides essential semantic context beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool finds systems by hostname, using partial hostname input. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_systems_by_ip' by specifying hostname search, and it's positioned as the first step when user input is a partial hostname.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'Use this first when user input is a partial hostname', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also advises that if multiple systems match, the agent should ask the user to choose a system_id, offering a concrete workflow step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes inputs (name or ID), recommends ID, and lists output fields. Lacks disclosure of error conditions or permission requirements, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.
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?
Four short sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, input format, fallback behavior, output. Front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers all needed: purpose, input options, fallback, output fields, and best practice. Complete and actionable.
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 has one parameter with anyOf string/integer but no description. Description clarifies it can be system_name or system_id, emphasizes preference for system_id, and explains fallback. Adds substantial meaning beyond schema.
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 explicitly states 'Get details for one system' (clear verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like list_systems (lists many) and find_systems_by_name (resolves names). Specifies return fields, reinforcing purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: use system_id when possible, and if name not found, resolve with find_systems_by_name then pass system_id. This clearly advises when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes a read operation (getting event details) and mentions the return object fields. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but it implies no side effects. Minor improvement would be to state it does not modify data.
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?
The description is concise with four lines of essential info. Each sentence adds value: purpose, inputs, error resolution, return fields, source of event_id. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description still describes the return object (status, timestamps, result fields, additional_info). It also explains how to handle unresolved system identifiers. For a simple read tool, this is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains system_identifier can be system_name or system_id, and event_id should come from get_system_event_history. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's raw types.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets one event detail, with specific inputs and a note that event_id should come from get_system_event_history. This differentiates it from siblings like get_system_event_history, which lists events, and get_system_details, which gets system details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly provides guidance: use event_id from get_system_event_history, and if system name is not found, resolve with find_systems_by_name. This tells the agent when to use other tools, fulfilling the usage guidelines dimension well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-uyuni MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uyuni-project/mcp-server-uyuni/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uyuni-project/mcp-server-uyuni)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-uyuni MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uyuni-project/mcp-server-uyuni/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/uyuni-project/mcp-server-uyuni)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/uyuni-project/mcp-server-uyuni'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server