vmware-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Guest Directory

guest_directory_exists

Check whether a specified directory exists inside a VMware guest VM to confirm paths before running commands or file transfers.

Instructions

Check if a directory exists inside the guest VM.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "guest_path": "<guest_path>"
    },
    "name": "guest_directory_exists"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vm`	No	VM name or .vmx path
`guest_path`	Yes	Directory path to check in guest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Check if...exists' conveys a read-only predicate, but it does not state whether the result is a boolean, how missing or inaccessible paths are handled, or explicitly that no changes are made to the guest. This is adequate 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?

A single clear sentence with no filler. The key scope, directory, and guest location are all front-loaded, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple predicate tool.

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 existence check the description is mostly sufficient, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, there is no output schema and no explicit statement of the return format or error behavior, leaving a small but real gap for an agent deciding whether the tool's result is reliable.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra meaning beyond identifying guest_path as a directory to check.

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 and resource: 'Check if a directory exists inside the guest VM.' It is unambiguous and differentiates itself from sibling file tools like guest_file_exists by explicitly saying 'directory' instead of 'file'.

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 action implies use when verifying a guest directory's existence before a dependent step, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It is easy to infer but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.