ppdm-mcp-server

nw_get_client

Retrieve detailed information for a specific NetWorker client by ID to identify and inspect the client resource.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a specific NetWorker client by ID.

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": {
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "nw_get_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client_id`	Yes	NetWorker client resource ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 disclosure burden, yet it only says "Get detailed information." It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it errors on an invalid or nonexistent ID, what permissions are required, or what "detailed information" actually contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording that states the action, the resource, and the key. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotations, but it is structurally clean.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say something about the returned fields or failure behavior. As written, an agent knows what to pass but not what it will get back or how errors surface.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single client_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the "NetWorker client resource ID." The description reinforces the ID-based lookup but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Get detailed information for a specific NetWorker client") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which clearly distinguishes it from a listing tool such as nw_list_clients. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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 phrase "by ID" implies the prerequisite that the caller already has a client resource ID, hinting that a list operation is needed first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no named alternative, and no note on what to do if the ID is unknown.

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