ppdm-mcp-server

list_policies

Retrieves protection policies configured in PPDM, with optional name-substring filtering, to help inspect backup coverage and policy settings.

Instructions

List protection policies configured in PPDM.

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_policies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Policy name substring filter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 implies a read-only enumeration but says nothing about return shape, whether all policies are returned or pagination applies, or whether the output is a summary list versus full policy configuration.

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?

One short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and free of filler. Its brevity is a virtue up to a point, though the same brevity leaves the gaps noted in the other dimensions.

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?

For a simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never clarifies what a returned policy contains or whether filtering is the only narrowing option. The absence of annotations means the definition should have compensated with more behavioral detail than it does.

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%, with the single optional 'name' parameter already documented as a substring filter. The description adds no further meaning about matching semantics or behavior of the filter, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 protection policies configured in PPDM." An agent knows it enumerates policy objects. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling nw_list_policies or explain how the PPDM policies differ from those, so the differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for policies, while mutations go to pause_policy, resume_policy, or trigger_backup.

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