Nemeton MCP

by juergenkoller-software

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

create_snapshot

Create a copy-on-write snapshot to preserve the current state of a virtual machine for safe testing or recovery.

Instructions

Create a copy-on-write snapshot of a VM.

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": "create_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vm`	Yes	VM name or identifier
`name`	No	Snapshot name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'copy-on-write' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., storage consumption, performance impact) or operational context (e.g., VM state requirements).

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?

A single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant or extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While adequate for a simple tool, the description omits details about return values, required permissions, and how the snapshot relates to other VM management tasks. Given no output schema and many sibling tools, more context would improve agent decision-making.

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 already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score given 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and the object ('a copy-on-write snapshot of a VM'), distinguishing it from snapshot management siblings like delete_snapshot and restore_snapshot.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clone_vm or export_vm. Prerequisites or conditions (e.g., VM must exist, disk format support) are missing.

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