snapshot_createCreate a snapshot of a virtual machine's current state after user confirmation, preserving a restore point for later use.
Create a snapshot of the current VM state after explicit confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm | Yes | ||
| uuid | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that confirmation is required ('after explicit confirmation'). This introduces a behavioral requirement beyond the annotation, but it does not clarify the confirmation mechanism or consequences of not confirming. No contradiction exists with the annotations.
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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It is efficient and earns its place by stating the core purpose, though it omits necessary details.
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?
For a destructive tool with four parameters and no schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required parameters, the confirmation mechanism, or the expected output, leaving the agent without critical context to invoke it correctly.
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?
The description provides no explanation of any parameters (vm, name, confirm, description). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no additional meaning about these fields from the description. It only hints at the VM state, not the specific parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('create') and the resource ('snapshot of the current VM state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like snapshot_delete, snapshot_revert, and snapshot_list by focusing on the creation aspect, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions beyond the confirmation note. The agent is left to infer that creating a snapshot is the intended use, but there is no explicit routing or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.