ppdm-mcp-server

nw_list_clients

Lists NetWorker clients registered on a server, with optional substring filtering by client name to quickly locate specific clients.

Instructions

List NetWorker clients registered on the server.

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": "nw_list_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Filter by client name substring

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 supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but the description says nothing about pagination, result limits, sort order, whether full client objects or names are returned, or whether it touches the NetWorker server live.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the resource stated immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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 trivial one-optional-param list tool with full schema coverage this is roughly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still cannot learn the return shape or read-only guarantee from any structured field. A sentence on what a client record contains would have closed the gap.

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?

The single optional parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Filter by client name substring'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about matching semantics (case sensitivity, partial matching scope) beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List NetWorker clients') plus a scope qualifier ('registered on the server'), so the agent knows exactly what entity set is returned. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling nw_get_client, which presumably fetches full details for a single client.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only hint is the verb 'List' and the optional name filter, leaving the agent to infer that this is the discovery tool that precedes nw_get_client.

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