Nutanix MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_categories

List category keys and values for resource tagging to enable policy-based management like Flow and disaster recovery.

Instructions

List category keys and their values used for resource tagging. Categories enable policy-based management (Flow, DR, etc.).

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": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	No	OData filter expression. Example: "key eq 'Environment'"
`limit`	No	Maximum number of categories to return. Omit to retrieve all (auto-paginates).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It mentions listing keys and values and policy context but omits behavioral details like pagination, performance, or that it is a read-only operation. The auto-pagination hint in the schema is not reiterated.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary function, the second adds context. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and two simple parameters, the description is mostly complete. It could hint at the return format (list of key-value pairs) but is sufficient for a basic list operation. The context about policy management adds useful background.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only clarifies the overall result (keys and values) but does not elaborate on how parameters affect output or provide examples beyond the schema's OData filter example.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists category keys and values used for resource tagging, and explains their role in policy-based management. It distinguishes well from siblings like get_category (singular retrieval) and other list_ tools that deal with different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_category. While the purpose is clear, an explicit usage note (e.g., 'Use for overview of all categories; use get_category for a specific one') would improve the score.

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