Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nutanix MCP Server

Nutanix MCP Server

by jkmills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

pe_list_containers

Retrieve storage container details including name, capacity, usage, replication factor, and policies from a Nutanix Prism Element cluster.

Instructions

List storage containers on a Prism Element cluster. Returns names, capacity, usage, replication factor, and policies.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pe_host": "<pe_host>"
    },
    "name": "pe_list_containers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pe_hostYesPrism Element CVM IP address or hostname

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The name suggests listing, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is concise yet informative. There is no unnecessary information, and it is easy to read.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return values. It could mention pagination or result limits, but overall it is fairly complete for a list tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'pe_host' parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'List', the resource 'storage containers', and the context 'on a Prism Element cluster'. It also lists the return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_storage_containers', so it loses a point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_storage_containers' or other listing tools. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools