Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

Nutanix AIops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vm_list

Read-only

List Nutanix AHV and ESXi-backed VMs from Prism Central, with hypervisor labels and truncation status to check complete or partial results.

Instructions

[READ] List VMs — AHV and (by default) ESXi-backed too; hypervisor field distinguishes.

AHV and ESXi are read from separate endpoints. If the ESXi read fails, the
AHV rows are still returned with `esxiError` set and `truncated: null`
(completeness unknown) — a partial list, not "no ESXi VMs".

Args:
    include_esxi: Include ESXi-backed VMs Prism Central can see (default True).
    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
targetNo
include_esxiNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that — reads hit separate AHV/ESXi endpoints, a failed ESXi read still returns AHV rows with esxiError set and truncated: null (completeness unknown). This false-negative warning is exactly the kind of trait structured fields cannot convey.

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 one-line summary, then a dedicated Args block. The middle paragraph on partial reads is slightly dense but earns its place as operational guidance; overall tight with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the key return fields (hypervisor, esxiError, truncated, returned, limit) and the degraded-mode semantics. For a 3-param, zero-required read tool, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all three parameters — and it does: include_esxi (default True, scope), limit (default 500, cap), target (config name, omit for default). It further explains the returned/limit/truncated reporting that makes a capped read visible.

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 ('[READ] List VMs') and immediately sharpens scope: AHV plus (by default) ESXi-backed, with the hypervisor field distinguishing them. This is clearly separable from siblings like vm_get (single VM) and vm_create/vm_delete (mutations).

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?

Clear context for use: a bulk read that spans both AHV and ESXi endpoints, with explicit guidance that an ESXi read failure yields a partial list rather than 'no ESXi VMs'. It does not name alternatives (e.g. when to use vm_get instead) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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