Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Raidcom MCP

Raidcom MCP

by visubramaniam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Show storage model limits

raidcom_model_limits
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve valid parameter ranges for Hitachi storage models, including serial number, LDEV ID, pool ID, LU number, and port names, to verify values against each model's limits before running raidcom commands.

Instructions

Valid parameter ranges for a storage model (serial number, LDEV ID, pool ID, LU number, port names), taken from the Command Reference appendices. Without model, lists the models.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "raidcom_model_limits"
  }
}

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds some useful context: the values come from Command Reference appendices and omitting `model` changes behavior to list models, which is valuable beyond the annotations but still leaves return shape and any lookup constraints unstated.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the tool returns and then adds the important omit-`model` fallback behavior.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavior: what ranges are returned and what happens when `model` is omitted. It could be slightly more complete by sketching the return structure, but the core information is present.

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 100%, so the `model` parameter is already thoroughly documented with accepted values, aliases, and omit behavior. The description adds that returned ranges cover serial number, LDEV ID, pool ID, LU number, and port names, but that is more about result content than additional parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a reference lookup for valid parameter ranges per storage model, and the parenthetical lists the kinds of values covered. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the build/check/list siblings, but the resource and scope are clear enough for an agent to tell it apart.

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 by explaining that omitting `model` lists known models, and that supplying it returns ranges for that model. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the sibling command-building/checking tools, or any prerequisites for use.

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