Create a virtual machine snapshot to capture its current state, then track progress via task status. Ensures a restore point before system changes.
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 | Must be true to run the operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous and that status must be tracked via check_task. It does not cover the confirmation requirement in prose, but that is present in the schema with a clear description.
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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the critical async/check_task detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It gives the essential async follow-up behavior and clear purpose. A small gap is the lack of any pointer to sibling snapshot operations, but that is not critical for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter (id, name, confirm) already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the operation itself, so the schema carries the semantic burden and the baseline of 3 applies.
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 VM snapshot) and even includes the API endpoint 'vm/create_snapshot'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_snapshots, restore_snapshot, and remove_snapshot.
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 async operation note and 'status via check_task' give some post-invocation guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus restore_snapshot or remove_snapshot, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is largely implied by the name and purpose rather than made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.