mcp-vmwhere

列出網路

list_networks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves vCenter networks and port groups, returning total and type-grouped counts plus each network's ID, name, and type for inventory checks.

Instructions

列出 vCenter 中的網路 / Port Group。

回傳 total、依類型分組的數量(STANDARD_PORTGROUP、DISTRIBUTED_PORTGROUP 等), 以及每個網路的 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_networks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`networks`	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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the port group type taxonomy (STANDARD_PORTGROUP, DISTRIBUTED_PORTGROUP) and the per-item fields returned, giving the agent a sense of result shape. It does not mention permissions, scope limits across datacenters, or behavior on empty results.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the listing scope comes first, followed by the return shape. The return-shape sentence partially duplicates the existing output schema, but it is brief enough not to be wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes them helpfully. For a zero-param, read-only listing tool, nothing essential is missing; only environment prerequisites or permission requirements would add further value.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('列出 vCenter 中的網路 / Port Group') and clarifies that Port Groups are included, which is a meaningful scope statement beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the sibling list is a set of disjoint resource types (list_vms, list_hosts, list_datastores), so confusion risk is low.

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 only by the resource scope in vCenter; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement. For a zero-parameter inventory listing this is largely self-evident from the name, so the gap is minor but real.

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

Deploy Server