Lists up to 200 services running in a Hyper-V VM's guest OS, filtered by name; stopped services are excluded by default and can be included for diagnostics.
List up to 200 guest services filtered by name; stopped services are excluded by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_name | Yes | ||
| name_contains | No | ||
| include_stopped | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a hard 200-item cap and the fact that stopped services are excluded unless overridden. It does not address ordering or what happens when more than 200 services match.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the verb, resource, cap, and default behavior front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers the two behaviorally significant parameters and the result cap. The omission of vm_name is the main remaining gap for a small three-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the name filter and the include_stopped default, but the required vm_name parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both places.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("List ... guest services") plus key scope details: a 200-item cap and name-based filtering. It does not name any sibling (e.g. guest_processes, guest_status) to differentiate itself, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as guest_processes or guest_status, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. Usage is only implied by the resource name and the filtering/default behavior described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.