vmware-mcp

by havu0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

List Guest Directory

guest_list_directory

List the contents of a directory inside a guest VM to inspect files and folders for management.

Instructions

List the contents of a directory 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_list_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a listing, but does not mention whether it is recursive, whether hidden files are included, whether the VM must be running, or whether VMware Tools are required. These are meaningful gaps for a guest VM operation.

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 states the operation and target in an efficient way. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter list operation, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks any note about output behavior, prerequisites, or edge cases. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more context would help the agent know what to expect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'vm' and 'guest_path' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but it does nothing to enrich the parameter meaning.

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 a specific resource ('contents of a directory inside the guest VM'), clearly distinguishing it from file reading, existence checks, and directory creation. It is immediately unambiguous.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like guest_directory_exists, guest_read_file, or guest_directory_create. The context is clear for a simple listing operation, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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