mcp-vmware

by Hokonoken

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

vmware_list_snapshots

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the snapshot tree of a VMware VM, including snapshot names, descriptions, creation dates, and child snapshots.

Instructions

Snapshot tree of a VM (name, description, date, children).

Returns a structured object {vm, count, current_snapshot_moid, snapshots:[...tree...]}.

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": "<vm>"
    },
    "name": "vmware_list_snapshots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vm`	Yes	Exact name or MoID of the VM

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the return format (tree structure) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, auth requirements, or hidden side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and included fields, second specifies return structure. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, return structure explained, presence of output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to use. It covers the output format and required input. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or behavior when VM not found.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'vm' parameter. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description explicitly states it returns a snapshot tree of a VM, including fields (name, description, date, children) and the overall return structure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools that focus on different VMware resources.

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 for retrieving snapshot information, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools) or any prerequisites. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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