List registered VMs with power, debugger, and terminal state to identify which machines are ready for control.
List registered VMs with power, debugger and terminal state.
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": "vm_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the mention of state categories adds context, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, how 'registered' is defined, or what happens when no VMs exist. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and output scope without any filler. 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?
This is a low-complexity, no-argument tool, and the description covers its main purpose and output categories. It lacks a stated return format or edge-case behavior, but for a tool this simple the missing details are unlikely to prevent correct invocation or interpretation.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns, which is the only meaningful semantic content for this tool.
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 a clear verb ('List') with a specific resource ('registered VMs') and names the key output dimensions: power, debugger, and terminal state. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like vm_state or sys_state by indicating a multi-state listing behavior.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use vm_list versus sibling tools such as vm_state, vm_start, or sys_state. It implies a listing use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.