Nutanix AIops

storage_container_list

Read-only

List Nutanix Prism Central storage containers with capacity, usage, and replication factor to audit storage consumption and set read limits or target systems.

Instructions

[READ] List storage containers (extId, name, cluster, capacity, usage, RF).

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": "storage_container_list"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result reports returned/limit/truncated so a capped read is visible, and it names the returned fields. This truncation-awareness is genuinely helpful.

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 [READ] tag and resource list, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, though the truncation 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 read-only list tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies both parameter semantics and the return-field/truncation behavior. Nothing critical is missing, though pagination beyond limit is not discussed.

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 both parameters, and it does: limit is defined as max rows with a default of 500, and target is identified as the Prism Central target name from config, omittable for the default. Both parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 (List) and resource (storage containers), then enumerates the returned fields (extId, name, cluster, capacity, usage, RF). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling storage_container_create/update/delete operations.

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 parameter notes (limit caps rows, omit target for default), but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or exclusions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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