mcp-server-qnap-qvs

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.9.2
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools have overlapping scopes: list_vms, get_vm_states, and get_overview all report VM status; list_images and check_iso both scan for ISOs; start_vm and resume_vm both can resume a suspended VM. While descriptions help differentiate them, an agent may still pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_vms, create_vm, delete_snapshot, mount_iso). Even multi-word verbs like force_shutdown_vm and install_guest_agent_ssh are uniform, with no mixed conventions or stylistically inconsistent names.
Tool Count4/5
37 tools is heavy but reasonable for a comprehensive VM management server covering VMs, disks, snapshots, ISOs, guest agents, and per-device details. The count is justified by the breadth of functionality, though some getter tools could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
Core VM lifecycle is fully covered (create, read, update, delete, start, stop, reset, suspend/resume) along with snapshots and ISO management. However, disk management lacks the ability to add a new disk, and network adapter and USB management are read-only, leaving minor gaps for advanced operations.
Average 4.2/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'List all disks' without mentioning whether it is read-only, what happens if the VM does not exist, or how disks are returned. The 'Args' section adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Args' section repeats schema information but adds minimal value; however, the overall length is appropriate and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks usage context, behavioral transparency, and parameter clarity. For a single-parameter tool with no annotations, this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about edge cases and appropriate invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides vm_id with no description, and the description only adds 'The VM identifier', which is largely redundant with the parameter name. It does not specify whether the ID is a UUID, name, or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all disks attached to a virtual machine' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vm_adapters or get_vm_graphics, which list other types of VM information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information on how this tool fits among the many VM-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only states the read action but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites (e.g., VM state). No additional context about side effects or return behavior is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no fluff. The 'Args' block is somewhat redundant with the schema but does add a brief explanation. Overall, it is efficient, though it omits important contextual details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the absence of annotations and any when-to-use notes makes it incomplete for a tool in a large sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'vm_id: The VM identifier', which offers a basic human-readable explanation beyond the schema's title 'Vm Id'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is the only parameter documentation, but it remains vague and does not specify how to obtain the ID or constraints on its format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get CD-ROM drives and mounted ISOs for a virtual machine.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('CD-ROM drives and mounted ISOs'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_vm_disks or get_vm_adapters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 compared to alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor any exclusions or references to sibling tools such as list_vm_disks or get_vm_states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the QEMU guest agent dependency, which is a significant runtime requirement. However, it does not mention failure modes (e.g., if the agent is not running), return format, or data freshness—though the latter may be covered by the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively compact: one purpose sentence, a prerequisite sentence with install command, and an Args block. The install command is long but directly relevant to the tool's operation. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical prerequisite. It lacks guidance on alternative tools and error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The output schema handles return value documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines vm_id only as 'The VM identifier,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself. It does not explain how to obtain the vm_id (e.g., via list_vms) or any formatting constraints. The description's coverage is insufficient 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Get the IP addresses assigned to a virtual machine.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from most siblings, though it could explicitly contrast with get_vm_adapters or get_vm which may also surface IPs. It clearly identifies the target resource via vm_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a key prerequisite: the QEMU guest agent must be installed and running, with an installation command. It does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it reference sibling tools like get_vm or list_vms. Usage context is implied (when IPs are needed) but not explicitly scoped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the VM does not exist, whether an empty list is returned, or any error conditions. The description is purely declarative with no behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. However, the Args section is redundant with the input schema and adds little value. It is efficiently short but includes a slightly unnecessary structural repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains what the tool does and the parameter is self-evident. However, it lacks context about error cases, permissions, or how USB devices are represented, which leaves some gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description restates 'vm_id: The VM identifier' in an Args block, which only duplicates the schema's property title 'Vm Id' and adds no new information. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., UUID vs name), whether it is case-sensitive, or any constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get USB passthrough devices attached to a virtual machine', which clearly specifies the verb (get), the resource (USB passthrough devices), and the target (a virtual machine). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_vm_adapters and get_vm_cdroms, each targeting a different device category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by the tool name and the 1-line description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., VM must exist, requires specific permissions). The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action of getting, such as read-only nature, error behavior, or performance implications. The description carries the full burden but offers minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a single clear sentence and an effective Args block. It avoids verbosity but the 'Args' formatting is standard and not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema covers return values, and the parameter is explained. However, it omits any mention of error cases or when to use it, leaving minor gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that vm_id is a numeric ID obtained from list_vms, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare property title. With schema description coverage at 0%, this description compensates well for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific virtual machine,' which identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_vms (which lists all VMs) and get_vm_ips (which gets IPs), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: the description says the vm_id comes from list_vms, suggesting use after listing VMs, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other getter/sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, so an agent can infer non-destructiveness. However, the description does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as error conditions if the VM doesn't exist, ordering of snapshots, or whether an empty list is returned. It minimally satisfies transparency for a simple list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' block is somewhat redundant with the schema but is not verbose or confusing. Every sentence contributes to the basic understanding, with no extraneous fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what happens if the VM does not exist, whether snapshots are ordered, or when to use this tool in a snapshot management workflow. It lacks richer behavioral context that would help an agent operate confidently in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter, vm_id, with no property description (0% coverage). The description says 'The VM identifier,' which adds no meaningful information beyond the schema's title 'Vm Id' and provides no format, examples, or guidance on where to obtain the ID. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('List all snapshots') with a specific resource ('for a virtual machine'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_snapshot, revert_snapshot, and delete_snapshot, which are not listing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when listing snapshots), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of using this tool before revert/delete operations or any relationship to other VM inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether the operation is asynchronous, what happens if the VM is already running, or any permission requirements, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact—one action statement plus a single argument definition—with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about side effects, preconditions, or relationships to sibling tools like resume_vm, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'The VM identifier' adds little beyond the schema's property name and type; it does not clarify the format, how to obtain it, or whether it's a name or UUID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Start') on a virtual machine, and specifies the valid target states ('stopped or suspended'), which clearly distinguishes it from read tools like get_vm and state-changing tools like shutdown_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for VMs in stopped or suspended states, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, such as the existence of resume_vm or reset_vm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention that this is a state-changing operation, potential errors, prerequisites, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: one action sentence plus a short Args line. No filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the core action and parameter. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it adequate but not complete for an agent to invoke confidently in all situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description, so the description's 'The VM identifier' adds basic meaning. It clarifies the purpose of vm_id but not its format or constraints, providing only minimal compensation for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'resume' with a resource 'suspended virtual machine', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like suspend_vm and start_vm. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'suspended virtual machine' gives clear context on when to use the tool: only for VMs in a suspended state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a simple operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the 'DESTRUCTIVE' nature (though arguably misleading for a snapshot creation), the confirmation requirement with a preview mode, and that memory is captured only if the VM is running. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. It uses a clear 'DESTRUCTIVE:' prefix and lists args in a structured format. However, the prefix may be unnecessary and the args section could be formatted as a list for better scannability, but overall it is efficient and not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderately complex tool with no annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavior: what is captured, how confirm works, and the optional name. It does not explain failure conditions or permissions, but for a snapshot creation tool, the description is sufficiently comprehensive for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains all three parameters: vm_id ('The VM identifier'), name ('Optional name for the snapshot'), and confirm ('Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise'). This adds clarity beyond the schema's type/default fields, though vm_id could be more specific.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a snapshot of a virtual machine' and elaborates on what is captured (memory if running and disks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_snapshots, revert_snapshot, and delete_snapshot by specifying the create operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions that confirm must be true to execute and otherwise returns a preview, which is parameter-level guidance but not tool-selection guidance. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Get' and specifically lists what is returned: 'VNC port, type, and whether password protection is enabled.' It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but for a simple getter these omissions are less critical. The return-value disclosure goes beyond a bare statement of purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: a purpose sentence, a return-value sentence, and a brief Args section. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the structure is easy to scan. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, simple output), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and identifies the input. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, vm_id, has no schema description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It offers only 'The VM identifier,' which essentially restates the parameter name without adding format, type constraints, or usage nuances. This is minimal extra meaning, insufficient to fully clarify how to construct a valid value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get graphics/VNC console info for a virtual machine.' It clearly identifies the tool's unique scope among sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_vm_states, get_vm_ips) and enumerates the returned fields (VNC port, type, password protection). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving VNC/graphics details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_vm or get_vm_states, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not prescriptive, so it meets the 'implied usage' level rather than the 'explicit when/when-not' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the VM is suspended to memory and the state is saved for later resumption via resume_vm. This provides meaningful context beyond the name, but it omits details about prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), failure modes, or any side effects, making only partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and an Args block, all front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient and free of fluff; the Args block is arguably redundant but does not detract from clarity. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the essential operation and lifecycle. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple suspend operation, the provided information is largely sufficient, though not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description coverage (0%), and the description only adds 'The VM identifier' for vm_id, which is largely redundant with the parameter name. It does not clarify the identifier format, how to obtain it, or any acceptable values, thus failing to compensate for the schema's lack of information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Suspend a running virtual machine to memory,' which specifies the verb, resource, and mechanism. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_vm, shutdown_vm, and resume_vm by explicitly noting the state is saved and resumable, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use this for a running VM to save its state. It also mentions 'can be resumed later with resume_vm,' pointing to a related tool for the reverse operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with shutdown_vm or reset_vm, so it lacks explicit exclusions that would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of ISO files, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention error handling, path permissions, or whether the scan is recursive. It is honest but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: one-sentence purpose, return value, common paths, and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what is returned and gives usage examples. It could mention whether the scan is recursive or what happens when no ISOs are found, but these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates with an 'Args' section explaining the 'path' parameter, including its default and common example values. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Scan a shared folder') and the resource ('ISO files'), making it distinct from sibling tools like download_iso or mount_iso. The verb 'scan' and the object 'available ISO files' specify exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context by listing common paths and provides a default, implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., list_images) or provide exclusions. It lacks direct 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It flags the tool as DESTRUCTIVE and explains the confirm gate and preview return, but it does not elaborate on what destructive entails (e.g., overwriting files, affecting the VM). This is helpful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with a warning, followed by a one-sentence summary, and an args list. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and a relatively straightforward export operation, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and safety behavior, but lacks prerequisites like VM state or permissions, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains all three parameters, including a path example and the confirm behavior, which the schema lacks. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though more detail on path constraints could be added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports a virtual machine to a NAS path, specifying the verb 'export' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like import_vm_file and clone_vm by describing the export action and destination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage guidance by requiring confirm=true for execution and explaining the preview behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like clone_vm or import_vm_file. The purpose is clear, but no comparative usage context is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ('Returns MAC addresses, bridge assignments, NIC model...') but doesn't mention whether there are any side effects, permissions required, or VM state prerequisites. For a getter, the read-only nature is implied, but the description doesn't explicitly state it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and return values in two concise sentences, followed by an Args line. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple getter nature with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and return values. It lacks caveats about VM state or empty results, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. The Args section says 'vm_id: The VM identifier', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. It doesn't specify format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID, leaving the description only slightly helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Get network adapters for a virtual machine' and lists exact return contents (MAC, bridge, NIC model, queue config), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vm_ips and get_vm_graphics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need network adapter details) by listing what it returns, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria. Sibling get_vm_ips is not referenced, so the guidance is contextual rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation and provides limited context about monitoring shutdown progress, but it does not detail output shape, whether it includes all VMs or only stopping ones, or any potential side effects. This 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and a clear purpose, the description provides sufficient context. It could explicitly mention read-only nature or that it complements get_vm_states, but the current description is adequate for a simple lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema aligns perfectly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('shutdown progress for all VMs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vm_states. It precisely identifies the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states it is useful during bulk shutdown operations to monitor which VMs are still stopping, providing strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning and the confirm flag's behavior ('Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise.'). It does not detail side effects like whether the VM must be stopped, but the provided information is useful for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, leading with a destructive warning, stating the purpose in one sentence, and listing arguments with clear explanations. Every sentence contributes value without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers the core operation and the confirm behavior. However, it lacks explicit usage context such as when to unmount versus mount, whether the VM must be powered off, or what the output/preview contains. Despite this, it is reasonably complete for a basic unmount operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides brief explanations for all three parameters, especially clarifying the confirm parameter's role, which is not evident from the schema alone. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaningful guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Unmount/eject an ISO from a VM's CD-ROM drive.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like mount_iso and get_vm_cdroms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mount_iso, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (VM count, running/stopped breakdown, resource usage, networking details) and notes that IPs are for running VMs only, which is a useful behavioral nuance. It doesn't mention performance or permissions, but for a read-only dashboard the transparency is solid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first front-loads the main purpose, the second enumerates return contents. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose and explicitly lists the return contents, covering both the dashboard nature and the specific data delivered. No significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this (100% coverage). Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately doesn't need to explain parameter syntax because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a summary dashboard of all VMs and resource usage.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vms (plain list), get_vm (specific VM), and get_vm_states (state info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for high-level overviews via 'summary dashboard' and details of returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' vs 'when-not-to-use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of events returned, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or pagination semantics beyond the parameter defaults. Still, as a log retrieval tool, the behavior is largely predictable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a purpose sentence, a content example sentence, and a clear arg list. Every sentence contributes, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention default pagination behavior or response ordering, but the existing content is sufficient for this straightforward log retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining both parameters ('limit' as number of entries with default 50, 'page' as pagination page with default 1), adding meaning that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get Virtualization Station event and audit logs') and lists concrete examples of log content (VM starts, stops, resets, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools focused on VM management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this is the go-to tool for retrieving event and audit logs. There is no explicit mention of alternatives, but none of the sibling tools perform log retrieval, so the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is a list/read operation and discloses the return content (names, IDs, states, resource info). It does not mention auth or edge cases, but the read-only nature is clear from 'List' and 'Returns'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second sentence details the output. No wasted words, fully front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It adds scope and status details beyond the schema, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information because none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource scope ('all virtual machines on the QNAP NAS') and states what is returned (names, IDs, states, basic resource info). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vm (single VM) and get_vm_states (likely state-focused).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need a list of all VMs with status) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as get_vm or get_vm_states. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, so it stops at implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly warns of data loss ('All changes since the snapshot was taken will be lost'), marks the operation as destructive, and explains the preview behavior when confirm is false. It does not detail post-revert VM state or permissions, but these are partly covered by the output schema and are less critical given the explicit warnings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the destructive warning, states the purpose, lists consequences and prerequisites, then presents arguments in a clean list. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with a confirm flag, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the risk, the prerequisite, and the confirm semantics. It has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. It could mention the post-revert VM state or whether the VM must be started manually, but the current description is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It briefly explains each parameter: vm_id as VM identifier, snapshot_id as snapshot identifier, and confirm as a gate that must be true to execute. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the confirm behavior, though it could provide more detail on identifier formats or value constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb ('revert') and resource ('virtual machine to a previous snapshot'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_snapshots, create_snapshot, and delete_snapshot by focusing on the revert operation. The DESTRUCTIVE label immediately conveys the tool's purpose and risk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear prerequisite ('VM should be stopped before reverting') and explains the confirm flag's role (must be true to execute, returns a preview otherwise). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of sibling snapshot tools makes when-to-use clear. No exclusions beyond the stopping requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It opens with 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, which is notable for a clone operation. It explains the confirm parameter's behavior: 'Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise.' This gives safety-critical context beyond the schema. It also hints at consistency risks if the VM is running. Lacks details on scope (e.g., disks, network config) but is substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with a 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning. It uses a clear title, a one-sentence purpose, a usage tip, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary operation, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. It might benefit from noting what happens to the VM's disks/snapshots, but the output schema and existing context make this adequate. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: vm_id (source), name (new clone), and confirm (execution gate with preview behavior). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields and their defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Clone a virtual machine' and explains it 'Creates a full copy of the VM with a new name.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vm (new VM) and snapshot tools (incremental states). The specific verb 'clone' and resource 'VM' make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides practical guidance: 'The source VM should ideally be stopped for a consistent clone.' This implies the tool is for creating copies and the ideal condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., snapshots, export), so it misses explicit 'when-not-to-use' but still gives clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it starts with 'DESTRUCTIVE:', explains the confirm mechanism ('Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise'), and warns about state changes. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but it adds significant context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list in a code block is compact and every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. It remains readable despite covering 8 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for invoking the tool: it covers all parameters, provides common values, and explains the confirmation flow. It does not mention edge cases like resource limits or cleanup, but the lack of annotation makes it comprehensive. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter, provides allowed values for os_type ('ubuntujammy', 'debian12', etc.), BIOS options ('ovmf', 'seabios'), and auto_start policies ('on', 'off', 'last'). It also lists defaults for each parameter, making it extremely helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description immediately states 'Create a new virtual machine' with a detailed explanation of resource configuration. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like clone_vm (which duplicates an existing VM) and import_vm_file (which imports an existing file).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on parameter values (os_type, bios, auto_start) and the confirm requirement, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like clone_vm or import_vm_file. It gives context on how to use the tool effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by opening with 'DESTRUCTIVE' as a warning and clarifying that confirm must be true to execute, otherwise a preview is returned. It doesn't elaborate on consequences like name conflicts or rollback, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: it starts with a warning and the main purpose, then provides necessary path format guidance, and finally lists parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential execution requirements, path format, optional naming, and destructive nature. It could expand on what 'destructive' entails, but overall it is complete enough for a 3-parameter import tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates fully: path is explained with the 'shared://' format and examples, name is marked as optional, and confirm is described as mandatory for execution with preview behavior. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'import' with a resource 'a virtual machine' and clearly specifies the source format 'OVA/OVF file on the NAS'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_vm, clone_vm, and create_vm, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating the file must already be on a NAS shared folder and mandates the 'shared://' path format. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to determine when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it lists only ISO images 'available for mounting to VMs,' which filters the result set. As a read-only list operation, the verb 'List' inherently communicates the non-mutating nature, so additional side-effect disclosure is unnecessary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, the resource, the location, and the purpose without any redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It specifies what is listed (ISO images), where (QNAP NAS), and the relevance (for mounting to VMs), which is sufficient context for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for such tools is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ISO images available on the QNAP NAS'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mount_iso or download_iso. It also adds the purpose 'for mounting to VMs,' which makes the tool's scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use it (when you need to see available ISO images for mounting to VMs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This provides clear context without exclusions, fitting the criteria for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature, irreversibility, and the preview/confirm behavior, which are critical behavioral traits. It could also mention prerequisites like VM existence, but for a delete tool, the key behaviors are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear DESTRUCTIVE warning, states the function, notes irreversibility, and then lists parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the irreversibility, the confirm requirement, and the preview behavior. The output schema can handle return value details, so the description need not explain further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by defining each parameter: vm_id and snapshot_id as identifiers, and confirm requiring true to execute with a preview otherwise. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a snapshot permanently' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_snapshots, create_snapshot, and revert_snapshot by explicitly indicating deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear usage context by explaining the confirm flag must be true to execute and that otherwise a preview is returned. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear and the confirm behavior serves as a safety guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it labels the operation DESTRUCTIVE, requires confirm=true to execute, describes the preview behavior, and discloses the SSH dependency. It does not address overwrite semantics or failure cleanup, but the critical safety behaviors are surfaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE label and purpose in the first sentence, then provides mechanism, prerequisite, and an Args block. Every sentence adds value with no fluff; the Args explanations justify their length given the 0% schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, SSH mechanism, prerequisite, downstream mount_iso integration, and complete parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values are already covered, leaving no significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: url (with example), destination (with default), filename (clarifying that the empty-string default means 'derived from URL'), and confirm (which gates execution and returns a preview otherwise). This goes well beyond the schema's bare defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'DESTRUCTIVE: Download an ISO file from a URL to the NAS,' which is a specific verb+resource+destination statement. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like check_iso, mount_iso, and unmount_iso, which concern different lifecycle stages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by explaining the ISO 'can then be mounted to a VM using mount_iso with path shared://ISO/<filename>' and by stating the SSH prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative download mechanisms, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive (mutation) and that confirm controls execution, returning a preview when false. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond a simple mount command, though it does not detail preview contents or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: one line for purpose, a brief warning, and a clean list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and execution confirmation. The output schema exists, so return details are not required. The mention of get_vm_cdroms adds completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are explained with meaningful details: vm_id, cdrom_id (source from get_vm_cdroms), image_path (with an example), and confirm (execution requirement). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, which have 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Mount an ISO image to a VM's CD-ROM drive' with a specific verb and target. It distinguishes from siblings like unmount_iso by the operation performed. The 'DESTRUCTIVE' prefix adds emphasis but does not obscure the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage context: tells you to get cdrom_id from get_vm_cdroms, and explains the confirm parameter behavior (must be true to execute, otherwise preview). Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for correct selection given sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'This permanently deletes the disk image,' and explains the preview behavior when confirm is false. This gives the agent critical information about irreversibility and execution requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. It front-loads the destructive nature, follows with the permanent effect and prerequisite, then provides an Args list that maps directly to the schema. Every sentence conveys essential information without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool, the description covers all critical context: the destructive irreversible action, the requirement that the VM be stopped, and the confirmation mechanism. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is complete for an agent to use the tool safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It does so by listing all three parameters (vm_id, disk_id, confirm) and adding crucial semantics: confirm must be true to execute and otherwise returns a preview. The parameter names alone are fairly self-explanatory, but the confirm clarification adds real value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'DESTRUCTIVE: Remove and delete a disk from a virtual machine,' which clearly identifies the action taken on a specific resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_vm or delete_snapshot by naming the disk as the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a key prerequisite: 'The VM must be stopped.' It also explains the confirm parameter's role, saying it 'Must be true to execute' and that otherwise it returns a preview. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output shape (VM IDs and state) and performance characteristic (faster than list_vms). It does not explicitly say 'read-only,' but the verb 'Get' and the nature of the output make the read-only behavior clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes. It is concise without being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema is present. The description fully covers what the tool does, its output scope, and its relationship to a sibling tool, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status overview of all VMs'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_vms by noting it is lighter and returns only IDs and states. It explicitly names the sibling alternative and highlights the difference in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: for a lightweight status overview, and contrasts it with list_vms (faster, returns fewer fields). This gives clear guidance on choosing between sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: it is destructive, causes immediate restart without graceful shutdown, may cause data loss, and requires confirm=true to execute (returns a preview otherwise). This exceeds basic expectations and provides critical safety information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise and well-structured. It opens with a strong 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning and the core action, followed by two clarifying sentences and a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter destructive action, the description covers the operation, consequences, and confirmation mechanism. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args section is necessary. It adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's behavior ('Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise'), which is not evident from the schema alone. vm_id's description is minimal but sufficient for its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Reset (hard restart) a virtual machine' and equates it to 'pressing the reset button.' It explicitly distinguishes from graceful shutdown by noting 'without graceful shutdown,' separating it from sibling tools like shutdown_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While no explicit alternatives are named, the description implies usage context through 'hard restart,' 'without graceful shutdown,' and the 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning. This signals when to use this tool (forced immediate reset) versus more graceful options, though exclusions are not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it labels the operation 'DESTRUCTIVE', states irreversibility, specifies what gets deleted (VM and disk images), and explains that confirm must be true to execute with preview behavior otherwise. This is thorough and sets clear expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE', followed by two essential sentences and a clear argument list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive delete operation, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, irreversibility, prerequisite (VM stopped), parameter semantics, and preview behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values are not expected in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains vm_id as 'The VM identifier' and confirm as 'Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise.' This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type and default, especially the safety-gate and preview behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Permanently delete a virtual machine and its disk images.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_disk or delete_snapshot by explicitly including disk images and emphasizing permanence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: the operation is destructive, cannot be undone, and requires the VM to be stopped first. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like shutdown_vm for non-destructive stopping, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses destructive nature, password visibility in logs, confirm flag behavior (preview when false), and sshpass requirement. Goes beyond basic mutation disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a clear warning, prerequisites, and an args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the DESTRUCTIVE warning is front-loaded for immediate attention.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, all parameter semantics, security considerations, and execution behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. This is complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains every parameter with meaningful detail: vm_ip source, os_family values and default, confirm execution behavior, and password security warning. Adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it installs QEMU guest agent on a VM via direct SSH, distinguishing it from the sibling install_guest_agent_virsh. The DESTRUCTIVE label and 'via direct SSH' provide method-specific clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Specifies prerequisites: VM must be running and SSH-accessible, and sshpass must be installed. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to the virsh alternative, but context strongly implies this is for SSH-based access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as DESTRUCTIVE, states the VM must be stopped, and notes that shrinking is not possible. It also discloses that confirm=true is required to execute and that otherwise a preview is returned. This goes beyond simple safety labeling and gives meaningful behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. It leads with a bold purpose statement, follows with a short precondition sentence, and lists arguments in a clear block. Every sentence carries essential information, and the formatting improves scannability without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, the description covers all essential context: destructive nature, preconditions (stopped VM), constraints (expand-only), and the preview/confirm workflow. The output schema exists to handle return details, so no additional output explanation is needed. This is a complete and self-sufficient description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description fully compensates by enumerating each argument with clear explanations: vm_id, disk_id (with source reference), size_gb (with units), and confirm (with behavior). This provides all necessary semantic meaning beyond the raw schema types, making parameter usage unambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'DESTRUCTIVE: Resize a virtual disk (expand only).' This clearly states the specific action (resize), the resource (virtual disk), and the critical constraint (expand only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_disk or create_vm, and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the key prerequisite 'The VM should be stopped' and the expansion limitation. It also points to list_vm_disks as the source for disk_id, giving contextual guidance. While it doesn't name alternative tools (there are none for resizing), it clearly implies when to use this tool: after stopping the VM and only to increase disk size. A slight addition of explicit 'when not to use' would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It opens with 'DESTRUCTIVE:' to warn about mutation, explains partial-update behavior ('only non-empty/non-zero fields are applied'), and reveals the preview and confirmation mechanism. This gives the agent a clear expectation of side effects and execution flow.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with a critical DESTRUCTIVE warning, followed by usage notes, then a clear argument list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundant filler. The 'Args:' section is easy to scan and maps directly to the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers preconditions, partial-update semantics, parameter meanings, and the confirm/preview workflow. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, so all necessary context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: vm_id identifies the VM, name and description use empty strings to keep current values, cores and memory_mb use 0 to keep current, auto_start accepts 'on'/'off'/'last', auto_start_delay uses -1 to keep current, and confirm must be true for execution. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update virtual machine settings.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name 'update_vm' is differentiated from siblings like create_vm, delete_vm, and start_vm by its focus on modifying settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: the VM should be stopped before changing CPU or memory, and only non-empty/non-zero fields are applied. It also explains that confirm must be true to execute and otherwise returns a preview. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it warns 'DESTRUCTIVE', equates it to pulling the power cord, and discloses risks of data loss and filesystem corruption. It also explains the confirm safety mechanism, going beyond basic expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with a warning, and uses a clear structure with an Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, safety, usage alternative, and parameter details sufficiently for a destructive tool. It anticipates key questions and provides adequate context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm's required behavior and default false, but vm_id is only described as 'The VM identifier', adding minimal value over the parameter name. Still, the confirm explanation is crucial and meaningful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Immediately force-stop a virtual machine' with a clear verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling shutdown_vm by advising graceful shutdown first, making the tool's distinct purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use shutdown_vm for graceful shutdown first') and clarifies that confirm must be true to execute, otherwise a preview is returned. This gives clear context and an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it warns 'DESTRUCTIVE', discloses that the QNAP SSH password will be visible in MCP client logs, explains the method is less reliable than SSH, and admits success cannot be easily verified. It also covers credential fallback behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a warning, then proceeds logically: mechanism, prerequisites, security caveat, alternative, fallback behavior, and parameter list. Each sentence adds necessary context, and the bulleted args section is scannable. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool involving SSH credentials, destructive actions, and fallback logic. The description covers prerequisites, security implications, reliability trade-offs, credential resolution, and the confirm/preview flow. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The guidance is comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained: vm_id, qnap_ssh_username/password with defaults/fallbacks, os_family with 'debian'/'redhat' choices, and confirm as a gate for execution. The preview behavior when confirm is false is also described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Install QEMU guest agent on a VM via QNAP virsh console', providing a specific verb, resource, and method. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool install_guest_agent_ssh by explaining the difference in approach (virsh serial console vs. direct SSH).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the VM is not SSH-accessible and its IP is unknown. It names the alternative 'install_guest_agent_ssh' and even explains why you'd choose one over the other. The prerequisite 'The VM must be running' is stated early.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature by starting with 'DESTRUCTIVE:', explaining the graceful shutdown mechanism, and requiring a confirm boolean to execute while previewing otherwise. It covers the key behavioral aspects and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured, starting with a clear warning, followed by the action, mechanism, prerequisite, alternative, and arguments. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete given the tool's complexity. It covers purpose, prerequisites, alternative use, and parameter behavior. With no annotations and an output schema not requiring further return-value explanation, it fully equips an agent to use the tool safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for its properties, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: vm_id as the VM identifier and confirm as a gate that returns a preview when false. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to gracefully shut down a running virtual machine by sending an ACPI shutdown signal. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool force_shutdown_vm by name and explains the difference in method and use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use force_shutdown_vm if the guest is unresponsive, providing a direct alternative. It also specifies the prerequisite that guest tools or ACPI support must be present, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-qnap-qvs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arnstarn/mcp-server-qnap-qvs/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arnstarn/mcp-server-qnap-qvs)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-qnap-qvs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arnstarn/mcp-server-qnap-qvs/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arnstarn/mcp-server-qnap-qvs)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/arnstarn/mcp-server-qnap-qvs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server