Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Raidcom MCP

Raidcom MCP

by visubramaniam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Check a raidcom command line

raidcom_check_command
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates and explains an existing Hitachi raidcom command line without executing it: parses input, rejects shell operators, and returns normalized syntax, option meanings, and all detected problems.

Instructions

Validate and explain a raidcom command line the user already has (for example one pasted from a runbook). It is parsed, not executed: shell operators such as ; | & > are refused. Returns the normalised command, what each option means, and every problem found. Credentials after -login are dropped.

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": {
      "command_line": "<command_line>"
    },
    "name": "raidcom_check_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoStorage model, so values are checked against its limits: vsp-one-b24, vsp-one-b26, vsp-one-b28, vsp-5000, vsp-e590, vsp-e790, vsp-e990, vsp-e1090. Aliases such as B28 or E990 work. Omit it to check against the widest range of any model.
strictNoDefault true. The command catalogue is parsed from the manual, whose syntax lines are occasionally incomplete, so a "needs <option>" error can be a false alarm. If one looks wrong after reading raidcom_describe_command, retry with strict=false: missing-option errors then become warnings. Unknown options and out-of-range values stay errors.
command_lineYesOne raidcom command, e.g. "raidcom add lun -port CL1-A-0 -ldev_id 200 -lun_id 1".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial detail beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: parsing without execution, refusal of shell operators with examples, redaction of credentials after -login, and the exact return payload (normalised command, per-option meaning, all problems). These are safety-relevant facts an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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 compact sentences; the core distinction (parsed, not executed) is front-loaded and the security note about -login credentials is last. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the three things returned. For a three-parameter validation tool whose safety profile is confirmed by annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the model and strict parameters are already explained thoroughly in the schema, including the strict=false retry behaviour. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. quoting rules or whitespace handling for command_line), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (validate and explain) and a specific resource (a raidcom command line the user already has). The qualifier 'the user already has' implicitly separates it from the build_command/build_script siblings that author new commands.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('one pasted from a runbook') and makes clear this is for pre-existing commands, which distinguishes it from the builder tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or an exclusion case the way an ideal definition would, but the context is unambiguous.

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