ppdm-mcp-server

nw_trigger_save

Trigger an on-demand backup for a NetWorker client using its client ID, enabling immediate data protection without waiting for the next scheduled save.

Instructions

Trigger an on-demand backup for a NetWorker client.

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_trigger_save"
  }
}

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

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 of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as a mutation that triggers a backup, but does not say whether the operation is asynchronous, what it returns, what permissions are needed, or what happens if a backup is already running.

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?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It immediately communicates the action and target.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum say what the trigger returns or initiates, and whether there are permission or concurrency considerations.

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 input schema fully documents the single client_id parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: trigger an on-demand backup for a NetWorker client. The singular 'client' subtly distinguishes it from bulk operations, but it does not explicitly identify when to choose it over the sibling trigger_backup tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus trigger_backup or bulk_trigger_backup, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The 'on-demand' wording implies a manual backup scenario, but the agent must infer all routing decisions.

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