Nemeton MCP

by juergenkoller-software

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

clone_vm

Clone a virtual machine to create a copy, optionally with a new name, for testing or backup purposes.

Instructions

Clone an existing VM, optionally under a new name.

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": {
      "vm": "<vm>"
    },
    "name": "clone_vm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vm`	Yes	VM name or identifier
`name`	No	Name for the clone

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Clone' but does not state that it creates a new VM, whether the source VM must be stopped, or if it affects the original. Lacks critical mutation details.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, efficient use of words.

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 clone operation, the description and schema provide basic completeness. However, it lacks mention that clone creates a new VM and prerequisites like 'source VM must exist'. Minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds 'optionally under a new name' which aligns with the optional name parameter, but no further detail beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Clone' and resource 'existing VM', with optional new name. Clearly distinguishes from create_vm (from scratch) and other VM operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or exclusions; usage is implied from the tool name and description. With sibling tools like create_vm, delete_vm, and start_vm, more guidance would improve clarity.

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