Skip to main content
Glama
washyu
by washyu

scan_infrastructure_drift

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect infrastructure drift by scanning hosts against the sitemap; returns a coverage report with probed, unreachable, unknown, and changed statuses and counts.

Instructions

Scan for infrastructure drift against the sitemap. Returns a four-bucket coverage report — probed_ok (sitemap host probed successfully), unreachable (sitemap host that did not respond), unknown (reserved for Phase 39 — infrastructure present on a Proxmox hypervisor but absent from sitemap), and changed (reserved for Phase 39 — fingerprint differs from stored). All four buckets are always present in the response (empty arrays for Phase-39-reserved buckets) so client code can iterate without defensive checks. Each scan also returns a counts sub-dict mirroring bucket sizes and, when zero hosts were scanned (empty sitemap or filter narrowed to zero), a top-level guidance field pointing to the sitemap CRUD tools (discover_and_map, get_network_sitemap, purge_failed_discoveries, decommission_device). Recovery from credential-resolution failure is handled via 'homelab-mcp credentials add --type proxmox'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeNoOptional sitemap hostname filter. Exact-match only — no wildcards, no case folding. When omitted, all sitemap rows are scanned. When set to a hostname that does not match any sitemap row, the scan returns status='success' with all four buckets empty and a guidance field — never an error.
vm_typeNoReserved for Phase 39 per-VM detection; currently filters at host level only (no-op until per-VM enumeration ships). Accepts qemu, lxc, or all — all three values produce identical scan results in this release.all
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: always returns four buckets, counts sub-dict, guidance field when zero hosts scanned, and behavior when node not found. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and efficient. Each sentence adds value: main purpose, bucket details, edge-case handling, and recovery instructions. No fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return format (four buckets, counts, guidance). It covers parameter behavior, edge cases, and recovery, making it self-sufficient for agent use.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: node filter is exact-match only, vm_type is reserved and currently no-op. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description provides critical runtime behavior details.

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 scans for infrastructure drift against the sitemap and explains the four-bucket coverage report. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative sitemap CRUD tools in the guidance section.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to scan for drift) and includes guidance on recovery from credential failure. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to siblings beyond the zero-hosts scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/washyu/homelab_mcp'

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