Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

Nutanix AIops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

snapshot_restore

Destructive

Revert a VM to a selected snapshot, overwriting its current state. Use dry_run to preview this destructive, non-undoable action before applying.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=high] Revert a VM to a snapshot. Destructive & NOT undoable — preview first.

Reverting overwrites the VM's current state; pass dry_run=True to preview.
Tagged risk=high (audit tier 'review'); NUTANIX_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY /
NUTANIX_AUDIT_RATIONALE optionally annotate who/why.

Args:
    vm_ext_id: VM extId as returned by vm_list.
    snapshot_ext_id: Snapshot extId as returned by snapshot_list.
    dry_run: If True, preview the revert without performing it.
    target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo
dry_runNo
vm_ext_idYes
snapshot_ext_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material context: the revert overwrites current VM state, is NOT undoable, is gated at audit tier 'review', and can be annotated via NUTANIX_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY/NUTANIX_AUDIT_RATIONALE. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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 risk/undoability warning before the Args block, so the critical information lands first. There is mild redundancy between the [risk=high] tag and 'Tagged risk=high (audit tier review)', but nothing is padded.

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 high-risk, 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, preview workflow, audit provenance, and every parameter. It could note post-revert VM state (e.g., power state), but an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 must carry the load, and it documents all four parameters, including where the IDs come from (vm_list, snapshot_list) and that target defaults to config. It stops short of 5 only because 'target' semantics are thin (just 'Prism Central target name from config').

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 ('Revert a VM to a snapshot'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling snapshot_list, snapshot_create, and snapshot_delete. The lead tags [WRITE][risk=high] immediately signal the operation class.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: destructive, not undoable, preview first with dry_run=True, and the audit approval/rationale env vars for the 'review' tier. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., snapshot_list to obtain IDs is only implied in the Args), so it falls short of explicit when-not routing.

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