Clone an existing VM to a new name, optionally specifying the Prism Central target.
[WRITE][risk=medium] Clone a VM to a new name.
Args:
vm_ext_id: Source VM extId as returned by vm_list.
new_name: Name for the clone.
target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| new_name | Yes | ||
| vm_ext_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description corroborates with '[WRITE][risk=medium]' but adds nothing about reversibility, expected duration, whether the clone lands as a task, or permission requirements. Adding a risk qualifier is modest value on top of the annotations, not contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short lines, front-loaded with the operation tag and the one-line purpose, then the arguments. No filler sentences and nothing redundant with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a non-idempotent write with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no statement of what the tool returns, whether cloning is asynchronous, or what failure modes exist (name collision, insufficient capacity). The annotation set covers the safety dimension but not the operational one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: vm_ext_id as the source VM id 'as returned by vm_list', new_name as the clone name, and target as a Prism Central name with a documented default when omitted. This is solid compensation, though it lacks format examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Clone a VM to a new name', with a functional tag '[WRITE][risk=medium]'. It distinguishes itself from vm_create by naming a source VM (vm_ext_id), but it never explicitly contrasts with vm_create or vm_migrate, which are the nearest siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., powered-off state, capacity on target), and no exclusions relative to vm_create/vm_migrate. The only contextual hint is 'omit for the default' for the target parameter, which is parameter-level, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.