vsphere-mcp-server

by InfraMCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific entity type and action (list vs get details vs power). There is no overlap; every tool has a clear, distinct purpose.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent 'list_<entity>' and 'get_<entity>_details' pattern. Minor deviations: 'get_vlan_info' instead of 'get_vlan_details', and 'vsphere_clear_credentials' uses a different verb prefix.
Tool Count5/5
17 tools is well-scoped for a vSphere management server, covering the main entities and basic actions without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness3/5
The set covers listing and getting details for core entities, plus power control for VMs. However, it lacks create/update/delete operations and more advanced VM actions (clone, snapshot, etc.), leaving notable gaps for full lifecycle management.
Average 3.4/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on October 6, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get detailed information,' implying a read operation with no side effects, but fails to mention authentication, rate limits, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, one for purpose and one listing parameters. It avoids excessive detail and is well-structured. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. It does not explain when to use this tool over list_datastores or other details tools, leaving gaps for an agent to make informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only adds a minimal example for hostname ('e.g., vcenter.domain.local') and no additional context for datastore_id. The schema titles already convey basic meaning, so the description adds limited value beyond trivial examples.
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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a datastore,' which identifies the action and resource. It is specific to datastores and differentiates from sibling 'get_*_details' tools by resource type. However, it lacks detail on what 'detailed information' entails, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_datastores or other get_*_details tools. No contextual hints about prerequisites or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'power off' without clarifying side effects (e.g., forced vs. graceful shutdown, state changes) or required permissions. This is critically insufficient for a destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes a docstring-style 'Args:' section that largely duplicates the schema. It could be more efficiently structured for an AI agent, but it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the critical nature of power-off and the absence of behavioral details, the description is incomplete. Even if an output schema exists, the lack of information about return values, error handling, or operation guarantees makes it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a small example for hostname but fails to explain the format or context of vm_id (e.g., UUID vs. name). The additional value beyond the schema is minimal.
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 clearly states 'Power off a virtual machine', which is a specific verb targeting a specific resource. It contrasts well with sibling tools like power_on_vm and the many read-only get/list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., power_on_vm or graceful shutdown). There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, or permissions. It only restates the action without additional context.
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?
The description is very short (two sentences plus parameter lines), making it concise and easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of purpose and parameters.
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?
The tool has an output schema, which helps, but the description lacks context on what 'detailed information' includes or when to use this over 'list_networks'. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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%, but the description provides brief explanations for both parameters (e.g., 'hostname: vSphere hostname'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title.
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 clearly states it gets detailed information about a network, matching the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like other 'get_*_details' tools, but the resource (network) is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_networks' or other detail tools. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns 'detailed information' without specifying what fields, size limits, or error conditions. There is no mention of access requirements or performance considerations.
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?
The description is concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and includes parameter details in a standard docstring format. Slightly more structure could improve readability.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on how to use the datacenter_id (e.g., from list_datacenters). The tool is simple, so the description is minimally complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for both parameters (hostname format example, datacenter_id purpose), which adds some meaning beyond the JSON schema. However, the descriptions are minimal and could be more detailed.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a datacenter.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_datacenters (which lists all datacenters) and other get_*_details tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need to obtain datacenter_id from list_datacenters, nor does it specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all datacenters' without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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 is extremely concise, using only two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant or unnecessary information.
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 simple 1-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are gaps given the absence of annotations.
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 description adds an example format for the required hostname parameter ('e.g., vcenter.domain.local'), which provides meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this example helps compensate.
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 clearly states 'List all datacenters,' specifying the verb and resource. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling names are distinct (e.g., get_datacenter_details, list_hosts), making the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions extracting and listing VLANs without stating that it is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, or potential performance implications. The example hostname is helpful but insufficient for transparency.
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 is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a brief parameter explanation. No superfluous words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
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?
Given that an output schema exists (but not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it leaves ambiguity about 'network names' and does not clarify whether the hostname alone is sufficient or if additional context is needed. The completeness is adequate but not thorough for a tool with many 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?
Although the schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions in properties), the tool description includes an 'Args' section that explains the hostname parameter with an example ('vCenter.domain.local'), adding useful meaning beyond the schema. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the action ('Extract and list') and the resource ('VLAN information from network names'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_vlan_info' by implying a listing operation, though it does not explicitly say 'all' or 'multiple', which slightly limits clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_vlan_info' or 'list_networks'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or filtering, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any potential side effects. It only states that it retrieves detailed information.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, with a clear goal in the first sentence. The args section is concise. However, the structure could be improved by omitting the 'Args:' block if integrated into the description.
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?
The description is minimal given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters, output schema exists). It does not mention what kind of detailed information (e.g., hardware, network) is returned, which would help the agent decide if this is the correct tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters and provides an example value (e.g., 'vcenter.domain.local') for hostname, adding some semantic meaning. However, it does not explain the format or constraints beyond the type.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about an ESXi host.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (detailed information about an ESXi host), and is distinct from siblings like get_vm_details or list_hosts.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_hosts (which lists all hosts) or get_datacenter_details. It implies that both hostname and host_id are required, but lacks guidance on when to choose this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core function. It does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, scope (e.g., whether it lists across all datacenters), or any side effects. The burden falls entirely on the description, which is insufficient.
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 is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action, and contains no filler or redundant content.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, list action) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context like relationship to sibling tools and behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: it provides an example value for 'hostname' but fails to clarify constraints (e.g., valid formats, whether it must be a vCenter hostname) or purpose beyond the 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?
The description clearly states 'List all datastores with capacity information', providing a specific verb ('List') and resource ('datastores'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_datastore_details' which focuses on a single datastore.
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 listing datastores but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_datastore_details' for individual datastores) or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without detailing side effects like required permissions, impact on sessions, or if the action is reversible.
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 is extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose. Its brevity is appropriate for such a simple tool.
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?
With a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context about prerequisites and consequences of clearing credentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds only an example for hostname but no additional meaning beyond the property name. The single parameter lacks constraints or format details.
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 clearly states the tool clears stored vSphere credentials for a domain, which is a specific action on a distinct resource. It differentiates from sibling tools that focus on listing, getting details, or power control.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The purpose is implied but not elaborated; the agent must infer use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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 is extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for parameter. No extraneous content.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context such as whether the list is exhaustive or if pagination applies. A minimal but adequate level.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides a useful docstring: 'hostname: vSphere hostname (e.g., vcenter.domain.local)'. This adds semantic meaning and an example beyond the schema's type-only definition.
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 clearly states 'List all ESXi hosts.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_host_details, which likely returns details for a single host.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it lists networks with VLAN info. No disclosure of safety, authentication needs, or return shape. Output schema exists but description does not leverage or hint at it.
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?
Extremely concise—two lines plus parameter doc. Purpose is front-loaded, no wasted words.
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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks mention of output fields or prerequisite credentials. Could be more helpful.
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 description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'hostname' with a vSphere context and example, improving on the schema's minimal title. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is valuable.
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 clearly states 'List all networks with VLAN information,' which includes a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_network_details' (specific network) and 'list_vlans' (different focus).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_details' or 'list_vlans'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens if VM is already powered on), authentication requirements, or whether the operation is synchronous. Only the action is named, lacking essential behavioral context.
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 is extremely concise: one sentence plus two parameter lines. Every word is necessary; no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with clear argument documentation.
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 simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks context on behavior (error states, idempotency) and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema may supplement return info, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.
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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: hostname (with example) and vm_id (generic description). While not exhaustive, this provides more context than the bare schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Power on a virtual machine', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. The name itself is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces the action without ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like power_off_vm and read-only queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., power_off_vm) or any prerequisites. The agent must infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it's read-only or mention any side effects, required permissions, or limitations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details, but basic behavioral disclosure is missing.
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 is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by an Args list. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose first.
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?
Given the tool is a simple get with 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context like the origin of folder_id (e.g., from list_folders) and error handling or conditions. Not fully complete for an agent to use without assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists parameters hostname and folder_id with a note 'hostname: vSphere hostname (e.g., vcenter.domain.local)' but does not explain the format or purpose of folder_id beyond its name. Parameter semantics are minimal and insufficient for an agent to know how to fill them correctly without external knowledge.
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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a folder', specifying the verb (Get), resource (folder), and scope (detailed). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_folders which just list folders.
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 using this tool when you need details for a known folder_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_folders or other get tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation (list folders) and parameter descriptions. It does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, pagination, or what happens with invalid hostnames. The output schema exists but its content is unknown, so return structure is unexplained.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the one-line summary. The Args section is concise and directly relevant. No extraneous information. However, the structure could be slightly tighter by integrating parameter descriptions into the summary, but it remains efficient.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an unknown output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., recursion depth, error handling) and usage context (when to use vs siblings). For a simple list tool, it meets minimum requirements but has clear gaps.
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 compensate. It provides meaningful explanations: hostname includes an example value, and folder_type lists the possible types (VIRTUAL_MACHINE, HOST, DATACENTER, DATASTORE, NETWORK). This adds significant value beyond the schema, though the allowed values could be more formally enforced.
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 clearly states 'List folders by type,' specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'folders', and the qualification 'by type'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_folder_details (which retrieves details of a single folder) and list_datacenters (different resource).
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 explains the parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_folder_details). It implies usage through the Args section but lacks guidance on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the listing action and parameter, without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 is extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and parameter usage. No redundant information, and critical details are front-loaded.
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?
Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description omits details on pagination, filtering, or what 'basic information' includes, which are relevant for a list tool. It is minimally complete.
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 compensates by providing a usage example for the hostname parameter (e.g., vcenter.domain.local), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type. However, it could be more explicit about format or constraints.
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 clearly states 'List all virtual machines with basic information,' specifying the verb (List), resource (virtual machines), and scope (basic information). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vm_details.
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 provides a required parameter example but does not explicitly state when to use list_vms versus alternatives like get_vm_details. Usage is implied but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but only describes functionality without noting idempotency, error conditions, or read-only behavior.
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?
Two concise sentences plus an Args block, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, with no unnecessary information.
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?
Parameters are adequately explained, but the description omits edge cases, permissions, or return format details; the presence of an output schema partly compensates.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides clear purpose and examples for both parameters (hostname as vSphere hostname, vlan_query as name or ID), adding value beyond the 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?
Description clearly states 'Get information about a VLAN by name or VLAN ID,' specifying the resource and two input methods, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vlans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying a specific VLAN, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_vlans for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states it 'gets' information, implying a read operation. It does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond the operation type.
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 is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus two lines for parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds no unnecessary text. Every element is essential.
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 presence of an output schema (which likely describes return values), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. It lacks mention of permissions or connectivity constraints, but for a straightforward get tool, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section adds critical meaning: 'hostname: vSphere hostname (e.g., vcenter.domain.local)' and 'vm_id: Virtual Machine ID or name'. This provides clarity and context beyond the bare schema property names.
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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific virtual machine', specifying the action (get), resource (virtual machine), and scope (specific). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vms (listing) and other get_* tools (different 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies retrieval of details for a known VM, but does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., if the VM ID is unknown, use list_vms first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vsphere-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/InfraMCP/vsphere-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/InfraMCP/vsphere-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vsphere-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/InfraMCP/vsphere-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/InfraMCP/vsphere-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/InfraMCP/vsphere-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server