Skip to main content
Glama
nokia

Redfish MCP Server

by nokia
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.3.9

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists accessible Redfish servers, the other fetches data from a specific resource URL. There is no ambiguity or overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'list_servers' and 'get_resource_data'. The naming style is uniform.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for a domain as broad as Redfish management. A typical Redfish server would require many more operations (e.g., power control, firmware updates).

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for Redfish. It lacks essential operations like power management, system reset, storage queries, or firmware updates, leaving agents with significant gaps.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under BSD 3-Clause.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function and return type, without disclosing behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, authentication requirements, or what happens when no servers are accessible.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is short but includes a redundant second sentence that restates the return type. It could be more efficiently written by combining both sentences into one, e.g., 'Returns a list of Redfish Servers that can be accessed.'

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it lacks context on what 'can be accessed' means, potential error conditions, or how the list is sorted. Additional details would enhance completeness.

    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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly implies no input is required, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

    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's action: 'List all Redfish Servers that can be accessed.' It specifies the resource (Redfish Servers) and the action (list all), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_resource_data' that likely retrieves data for a specific server.

    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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.

    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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches data as JSON, but it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

    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 sentences, immediately stating the purpose and providing a usage example. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

    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, the return format is covered elsewhere. The description explains what the tool does and how to construct URLs. However, it lacks details on error handling, connectivity requirements, or whether the tool requires authentication, leaving minor gaps.

    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 100%, but the description adds valuable context by providing an example URL and explaining how to construct valid input. This goes beyond the schema description, aiding correct invocation.

    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 that the tool fetches data from a Redfish resource URL and returns it as JSON. It provides an example URL format, making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tool 'list_servers' is distinct, likely for listing servers, so this tool is well-differentiated.

    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 have a specific Redfish resource URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_servers' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

    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

mcp-redfish MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-redfish MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/nokia/mcp-redfish'

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