Nutanix AIops

vm_protect

Destructive

Protect a VM by associating it with an existing protection policy using its VM extId and the policy extId.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=medium] Associate a VM with a protection policy.

Args:
    vm_ext_id: VM extId as returned by vm_list.
    policy_ext_id: Protection policy extId as returned by protection_domain_list.
    target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vm_ext_id": "<vm_ext_id>",
      "policy_ext_id": "<policy_ext_id>"
    },
    "name": "vm_protect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`vm_ext_id`	Yes
`policy_ext_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the non-structured "risk=medium" severity tag, which is genuinely useful context. But it does not explain the destructive aspect of an operation that superficially reads as additive association, nor whether re-associating overwrites existing policy membership.

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 operation tag and a one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args block. Every line contributes; the Python-docstring formatting is slightly ceremonial but not wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive-prone mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and all params but is silent on consequences: whether existing policy associations are replaced, whether the action is reversible, and what a successful call returns or triggers. Adequate but incomplete for a write operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, and it documents all three parameters: vm_ext_id (sourced from vm_list), policy_ext_id (from protection_domain_list), and target (PC target name from config, omit for default). The sourcing provenance and the default-omission rule add real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: "Associate a VM with a protection policy." This is clearly distinguishable from sibling write operations like snapshot_create, pd_failover, and vm_clone. The [WRITE][risk=medium] prefix further signals the operation class.

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 description implies usage by pointing to prerequisites ("as returned by vm_list", "as returned by protection_domain_list"), which helps the agent source valid extIds. However, it never states when to use vm_protect versus alternatives like pd_failover or snapshot_create, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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