Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

Nutanix AIops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

task_list

Read-only

List Prism Central tasks to monitor operation status, progress, and affected entities; filter by RUNNING, SUCCEEDED, or FAILED as needed.

Instructions

[READ] List Prism Central tasks (extId, operation, status, %complete, entity).

Args:
    status: Optional status filter, e.g. RUNNING / SUCCEEDED / FAILED.
    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
statusNo
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond it: the default cap of 500 rows and the fact that the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so truncation is visible. That truncation disclosure is the kind of thing 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?

The one-line summary is front-loaded and the per-arg breakdown is scannable. The Args block is slightly verbose in formatting but every line carries parameter information that the schema lacks.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and all three parameters are documented. Nothing critical for a correct read-only list call is missing.

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 burden and does so for all three params: status with example values (RUNNING/SUCCEEDED/FAILED), limit with its default of 500, and target with the config-name/omit-for-default convention. The status values are only illustrative ("e.g.") rather than exhaustive, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("List Prism Central tasks") and even enumerates the returned fields (extId, operation, status, %complete, entity), so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. No sibling tool covers tasks, so no differentiation is required.

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?

The [READ] tag and the optional filters imply the usage context, and the target arg explains how to fall back to the default. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus other listing tools, nor any exclusion guidance.

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