Retrieve the status of a submitted ESXi operation by ID. Durable records let you reconnect to tasks; interrupted operations are not auto-repeated.
持久化操作记录：submitted 任务可重新连接查询；中断的 executing 操作不自动重复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes | ||
| refresh_task | No |
| 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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: records are persisted, submitted tasks reattach, and interrupted executing work is not retried. This is meaningful beyond the structured hints, though it omits return/pagination behavior.
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 with two clauses; no filler. It is terse and slightly telegraphic, but front-loads the core notion of persistent records efficiently.
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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no sibling disambiguation against esxi_operation_history, the description is only minimally sufficient 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 the description names neither operation_id nor refresh_task. Only a faint implication of re-querying exists; the meaning of refresh_task (default true) is entirely unexplained, so the description 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?
The description establishes that this concerns persistent operation records but never states an explicit verb such as 'query the status of an operation by id'. The reader must infer the purpose from the tool name. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling esxi_operation_history or esxi_get_task.
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?
It notes that submitted tasks can be re-queried and that interrupted executing operations are not auto-retried, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to esxi_operation_history or esxi_get_task. No prerequisite or selection criteria are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.