Retrieve recoverable deleted managed VMs to identify and restore them.
List recoverable deleted managed VMs.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "qemu_vm_trash_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful context that the VMs are 'recoverable deleted' and 'managed', but does not disclose return format or pagination. Given the annotation coverage, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key qualifier 'recoverable deleted' is front-loaded.
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 parameterless, read-only listing operation, this description covers the essential purpose and scope. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the absence of an output schema is not critical for a simple list. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but this is not required 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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, with an empty schema and additionalProperties false, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter guidance is needed; the description adds no redundant information.
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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the exact resource as 'recoverable deleted managed VMs', which is unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from qemu_vm_list (active VMs) and qemu_vm_trash_empty (empty trash). This is a precise, single-purpose definition.
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 implies the tool is used to view deleted VMs that can still be recovered, likely before restoring or purging them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like qemu_vm_list or mention any exclusions, leaving the usage context to inference rather than direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.