vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

List MPB designs

mpb_list_designs

Read-only

Lists Management Pack Builder designs with ID, name, version, validation status, and install status, with an optional case-insensitive name filter.

Instructions

Lists Management Pack Builder designs with id, name, version, validation status and install status. Optional name filter.

Tool call template

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": "mpb_list_designs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nameContains`	No	Case-insensitive filter on design name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is helpful context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering for what is presumably a potentially large list.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler, with the scope and returned fields front-loaded and the optional filter mentioned last. Nothing is redundant or buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and three relevant annotations, this is nearly complete; it even partly compensates for the absent output schema by listing return fields. The only real gap is absence of any note on result volume or pagination.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that nameContains is a case-insensitive design-name filter. The description's 'Optional name filter' only restates optionality and adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a specific resource ('Management Pack Builder designs') and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, version, validation/install status). It clearly reads as an enumeration tool distinct from a single-design fetch, though it does not name a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Lists' — there is no statement of when to prefer this over mpb_get_design or mpb_get_design_status, no prerequisite or preconditions, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the sibling names that this is the bulk-enumeration entry point.

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