mcp-vmwhere

列出資料夾

list_folders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve vCenter folders with IDs, names, and types, plus total and per-type counts, to inspect and verify inventory organization.

Instructions

列出 vCenter 中的資料夾(Folder)。

回傳 total、依類型分組的數量(DATACENTER、VIRTUAL_MACHINE、HOST、DATASTORE、NETWORK), 以及每個資料夾的 id、名稱與類型。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`folders`	Yes
`type_counts`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the returned payload (a total, per-type counts, and per-folder id/name/type), which largely restates what the output schema already provides. Nothing is said about scale, latency, or permission requirements for a vCenter-wide inventory call.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and return shape second, with no filler. The second sentence spends words on output details that the output schema already carries, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 zero-argument listing tool with full annotation coverage and an existing output schema, an agent has everything needed to select and call it. The remaining gap is purely usage-side — no guidance on when to reach for this versus the other list_* siblings.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to elaborate; the baseline for a zero-param tool applies. The description does not pretend otherwise.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"列出 vCenter 中的資料夾(Folder)" gives a specific verb plus resource and states the scope is the whole vCenter inventory. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list_vms or list_datastores by the resource named, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only implied: the tool has zero parameters and is a plain enumeration, so an agent can infer it is the way to see folder topology. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_datacenters/list_vms, nor of any prerequisites such as authentication or permissions.

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

Deploy Server