Create a snapshot of a virtual machine by specifying its ID and snapshot name. Confirmation is required; operation runs asynchronously and status can be checked via task.
Создать снапшот виртуальной машины (vm/create_snapshot). Асинхронная операция — статус через check_task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID виртуальной машины | |
| name | Yes | Имя снапшота | |
| confirm | Yes | Нужно true, чтобы выполнить операцию. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation and non-destructive profile. The description adds a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: the operation is asynchronous and requires polling check_task for status. This is valuable context that is not present in the schema or annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences: first the core action, then the asynchronous behavior. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and the asynchronous nature, but it does not explain what the response contains (e.g., a task_id needed to call check_task), nor any operational prerequisites beyond the schema's confirm parameter. Since there is no output schema, this gap is significant for an agent to correctly chain the async pattern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (id, name, confirm) is described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning for the parameters, such as format constraints or relationships between them, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: "Создать снапшот виртуальной машины" (create a snapshot of a virtual machine). It also names the exact endpoint (vm/create_snapshot), and the sibling tools (get_snapshots, remove_snapshot, restore_snapshot) are clearly different operations, making it easy for an agent to distinguish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells the agent the operation is asynchronous and status should be tracked via check_task, which is useful when-to-use guidance for follow-up. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like restore_snapshot or get_snapshots, nor state conditions for when to use this tool over them. The usage context is implied, not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.