Recursively list the snapshot tree for a specified VM and return snapshot IDs, helping administrators inspect snapshot hierarchies before cleanup or troubleshooting.
递归列出指定 VM 的快照树，输出 snapshot_id。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_id | 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: traversal is recursive and the output key is snapshot_id. It still says nothing about ordering, depth limits, or how the tree is flattened.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the operation and scope with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than overly long, but there is zero waste.
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 the return format need not be re-explained (the mention of snapshot_id is redundant). With annotations covering safety, the remaining gaps are the missing vm_id format and the absent usage guidance, which keep it at minimum-viable rather than complete.
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 coverage is 0% for the single vm_id parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It only refers to '指定 VM' (the specified VM), which adds nothing over the parameter name itself — no identifier format, source, or example is given.
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 (list/递归列出) and resource (快照树/snapshot tree) scoped to a given VM, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the snapshot siblings (esxi_create_snapshot, esxi_revert_snapshot, esxi_delete_snapshot) beyond the obvious verb difference.
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 guidance on when to prefer this over the other snapshot tools or what preconditions apply (e.g., VM must exist, snapshot support). Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.