ppdm-mcp-server

nw_list_policies

Lists NetWorker protection groups (policies), with optional name substring filtering, to help users find and verify backup policies in PowerProtect environments.

Instructions

List NetWorker protection groups (policies).

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_policies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Filter by policy 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. It implies a read-only enumeration via "List" but says nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or whether a partial-name match returns multiple entries. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine 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?

The tool is simple (one optional filter, no output schema), so a short description is defensible. Still, it never indicates what a result entry looks like or whether the list is complete or paginated, which an agent needs before deciding to call it.

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 parameter has full schema description coverage ("Filter by policy name substring"), so the schema already documents match semantics. The description adds nothing about the filter, but with 100% coverage 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: "List NetWorker protection groups (policies)". The parenthetical usefully disambiguates NetWorker terminology by equating 'protection groups' with 'policies'. It stops short of distinguishing this from the near-identically named sibling list_policies, so an agent must guess which of the two to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing to an alternative. The description gives only what the tool does, leaving the choice between this and list_policies entirely to inference.

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