Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

Nutanix AIops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

lcm_update

Destructive

Perform LCM firmware and software updates on Nutanix clusters after a successful precheck. Use dry_run=True to preview changes without applying.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=high] Perform an LCM firmware/software update. Pass dry_run=True to preview.

Destructive and NOT undoable — tagged risk=high (audit tier 'review');
NUTANIX_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY / NUTANIX_AUDIT_RATIONALE optionally annotate
who/why. Requires a precheck that passed: run lcm_precheck first and pass
the taskExtId it returned. The update is refused without it. The dry_run
preview enforces the same requirement, so a preview can never report an
update the real call would refuse.

Args:
    cluster_ext_id: Cluster extId as returned by cluster_list.
    entity_ext_ids: LCM entity extIds (from lcm_inventory) to update.
    precheck_task_ext_id: taskExtId returned by lcm_precheck for these entities,
        once that task has reached SUCCEEDED (check with task_list). Required —
        the update is refused without it.
    dry_run: If True, return what WOULD be updated without updating.
    target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo
dry_runNo
cluster_ext_idYes
entity_ext_idsYes
precheck_task_ext_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the operation is NOT undoable, it sits in audit tier 'review', NUTANIX_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY/RATIONALE can annotate who/why, and the precheck gate is enforced even for dry_run. That dry_run parity guarantee is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 write/risk tag and refusal conditions, then a clean Args block — no filler. Slightly long, and the audit-tier detail plus the dry_run parity sentence could be tightened, but both carry real safety information.

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?

For a high-risk, non-undoable mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the mandatory precheck workflow, the dry_run escape hatch, and every parameter's source. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or decide not to.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it documents all five parameters, says where each ID comes from (cluster_list, lcm_inventory, lcm_precheck), explains dry_run semantics and target defaults, and flags precheck_task_ext_id as required even though the schema marks it optional with an empty-string default.

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 and resource ('Perform an LCM firmware/software update') and tags it as a WRITE/risk=high operation up front. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/inventory tools (lcm_inventory, lcm_precheck) and from unrelated write tools like vm_update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit prerequisites and ordering: run lcm_precheck first, wait for SUCCEEDED (verified via task_list), then pass the returned taskExtId, and the update is refused otherwise. It also names the dry_run preview path as the safe alternative before committing.

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