Retrieve declared properties from ESXi references to inspect hardware, PCI, VM devices, networking, storage, services, and accounts; secret fields are redacted.
读取发现引用的已声明属性；可查询硬件、PCI、VM 设备、网络、存储、服务、账户信息。秘密字段脱敏。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| properties | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait: secret fields are redacted. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or other operational constraints, so it is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short clauses, front-loading the core action and then the redaction behavior. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with four parameters, a nested required target object, and an output schema. The description covers the general purpose and redaction, but omits any explanation of how to use target, properties, depth, or max_items, and offers no guidance against alternatives, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, including a required nested target object and a required properties array. The description provides no meaning for target, properties, depth, or max_items, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: reads declared properties referenced by discovery, and lists queryable domains (hardware, PCI, VM devices, network, storage, services, accounts). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like esxi_api_invoke, esxi_api_schema, or esxi_resource_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It only states what can be queried, leaving the agent to infer when this generic getter is preferable to esxi_api_invoke or resource-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.