Skip to main content
Glama

vm_reboot

Destructive

Reboot a specified virtual machine using its extId through Nutanix Prism Central, with an optional dry run to preview the action before execution.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=medium] Reboot a VM (no distinct inverse).

Args:
    vm_ext_id: VM extId as returned by vm_list.
    dry_run: If True, return what WOULD be rebooted without doing it.
    target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo
dry_runNo
vm_ext_idYes

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, and the description reinforces this with '[WRITE][risk=medium]' and 'no distinct inverse' (i.e., no undo path). The dry_run behavior adds real operational context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of stating permission requirements or expected duration.

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 WRITE/risk tag and the core action, then an Args block that is efficient and earns its lines. Minor redundancy between the risk tag and the annotations, but no wasted prose.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive nature, irreversibility, parameter sourcing, and dry-run preview. It lacks only a note on what a successful response looks like and any permission/auth requirements.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does: vm_ext_id is tied to vm_list's output, dry_run is explained as a preview mode, and target is described as a Prism Central name with a default. target's description is terse but sufficient.

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+resource ('Reboot a VM') and immediately distinguishes itself from the power-state siblings (vm_power_on, vm_power_off, vm_guest_shutdown) by naming the distinct operation. An agent can identify this tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb, but the description never says when to prefer reboot over vm_guest_shutdown or vm_power_off/on, nor does it list prerequisites. The 'no distinct inverse' note hints at irreversibility but is not routing guidance.

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