Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nemeton MCP

Nemeton MCP

by juergenkoller-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_vm

Create a virtual machine from a Linux distribution image, specifying name, distro, CPU, disk size, and memory.

Instructions

Create a new VM from a Linux distribution image.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "distro": "<distro>"
    },
    "name": "create_vm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cpuNovCPU count
nameYesVM name
diskGBNoDisk size in GB
distroYesDistribution id (e.g. ubuntu, debian, fedora, arch)
memoryMBNoRAM in MB

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

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 carries full burden. It only states the creation action but does not disclose side effects, resource consumption, or any behavioral traits beyond creation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a complex creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It lacks information about post-creation behavior, networking, or IP assignment.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds context that the VM comes from a Linux distro image, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it creates a new VM from a Linux distribution image, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clone_vm or import_vm.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clone_vm, import_vm), nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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