Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nutanix AIops

Nutanix AIops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

protection_domain_list

Read-only

Lists Nutanix protection domains and policies with extId, name, and replicationType so you can review data protection configuration. Supports row limits and Prism Central target selection.

Instructions

[READ] List protection domains / policies (extId, name, replicationType).

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.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the limit cap of 500 and the fact that the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so a capped read is visible — useful behavioral disclosure about truncation.

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 operation and returned fields, then a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting is slightly terse rather than optimally polished.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the truncation contract. Complete enough for correct invocation; only the lack of sibling routing and pagination continuation semantics keeps it from the top.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for both params: it explains limit's default of 500 and its truncation-reporting effect, and clarifies that target is a Prism Central target name from config that should be omitted for the default.

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 ('List') and resource ('protection domains / policies') and even names the fields returned (extId, name, replicationType). Sibling differentiation is absent, however: nothing distinguishes it from recovery_point_list or other list tools beyond the resource noun.

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 only implied by the '[READ]' prefix and the target-parameter note ('omit for the default'). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like pd_failover or recovery_point_list, nor any prerequisite conditions.

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