Retrieve guest process status, PIDs, start/end times, and exit codes from an ESXi VM. Use read-only inspection to check protected VMs without modification.
查询guest进程状态、PID、启动/结束时间与exitCode；只读，可检查受保护VM。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pids | No | ||
| vm_id | Yes | ||
| expected_name | Yes | ||
| authentication | 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's '只读' merely restates the annotation, but '可检查受保护VM' adds genuine context about operating against protected VMs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence listing the resource and returned fields, then a short capability clause. No filler, though the readOnly restatement is slightly redundant with the annotations.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description covers the operation's scope. However, with a nested authentication object and three required params at 0% schema coverage, the definition is only minimally complete for 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% and none of the four parameters (pids, vm_id, expected_name, authentication) are explained in the schema. The description's mention of PID loosely maps to the pids parameter, but the required vm_id/expected_name/authentication params receive no clarification, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (查询guest进程状态) and enumerates the returned fields (PID, start/end time, exitCode), so the operation is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling esxi_guest_process, leaving the status-vs-launch split to inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings. The clause 可检查受保护VM hints at a scenario but is a capability note rather than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.