ppdm-mcp-server

dd_list_storage_units

Lists DDBoost storage units on a Data Domain system, returning each unit's name, assigned user, quota, and status for monitoring and administration.

Instructions

List DDBoost storage units on Data Domain — name, assigned user, quota, and status.

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": "dd_list_storage_units"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It implies a safe read and enumerates the returned attributes, but says nothing about pagination, permission requirements, or behavior on an empty result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb-resource-fields structure and zero filler. Every clause contributes information.

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-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned by naming the four key fields. Minor gaps around pagination and read-only confirmation keep it from full marks.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The schema is an empty object, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List DDBoost storage units on Data Domain') and even names the fields returned (name, assigned user, quota, status), so it is clearly distinct from dd_create_storage_unit. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent read tools such as dd_ddboost_status.

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 verb 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like dd_ddboost_status or dd_create_storage_unit, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is entirely inferred from the name.

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