Nutanix AIops

subnet_list

Read-only

List Nutanix subnets with ID, name, type, VLAN, cluster, and IP config. Use a limit to cap returned rows and detect truncation.

Instructions

[READ] List subnets (extId, name, type, VLAN, cluster, IP config).

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": "subnet_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 only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the [READ] tag merely restates that. The genuinely additive disclosure is that the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so a capped read is visible — valuable pagination/truncation semantics that the agent cannot get from the annotations or schema. It stops short of describing ordering, scope across clusters, or the full response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One summary line followed by a compact per-parameter block; the core purpose is front-loaded before the Args section. Every sentence earns its place — the field list aids selection and the Args entries resolve the two undocumented parameters.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters and the truncation behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on scope (does it span clusters/targets by default?) and on the exact response shape, but nothing critical is missing.

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 both parameters — and it does. `limit` is given a default (500) plus the truncation-reporting behavior, and `target` is explained as a Prism Central target name from config that may be omitted for the default. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their bare integer/string types.

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 ('List subnets') and enumerates the returned fields (extId, name, type, VLAN, cluster, IP config), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. The [READ] tag and 'List' verb cleanly distinguish it from subnet_get, subnet_create, and subnet_delete in the sibling set.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never says when to choose this over subnet_get (single subnet) or the other subnet siblings, nor does it state any prerequisites. The listing scope is self-evident from the name, which is implied usage at best; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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