Nutanix AIops

lcm_inventory

Read-only

List LCM-managed entities with current and available versions and updateAvailable status to spot which Nutanix components can be upgraded.

Instructions

[READ] List LCM-managed entities: current/available versions and updateAvailable.

Args:
    limit: Max rows to return (default 500). The result reports
        `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so a capped read is visible.
    target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.

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": "lcm_inventory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that results report `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so a capped read is visible, plus the target-resolution behavior. It stops short of describing rate limits or ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; only the multi-line wrapping of the limit note is slightly verbose.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (versions, updateAvailable, truncation metadata) and how to scope the read. The term 'LCM-managed entities' remains a little abstract, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: limit is explained with its default of 500 and truncation reporting, and target is explained as a Prism Central config name with omission defaulting. Both parameters are meaningfully documented, though no format examples are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list LCM-managed entities with current/available versions and updateAvailable. The '[READ]' tag and version-focused content make it distinguishable from the mutation siblings lcm_precheck and lcm_update, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the read tag and the mention of omitting target for the default, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., relative to lcm_precheck/lcm_update) and no stated preconditions.

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