Run a full read-only ESXi health check covering host, hardware, datastores, VMs, snapshots, performance, events, and overcommit to identify bottlenecks and risks.
Ejecuta todo junto: permisos, host, salud de hardware, configuracion, datastores, VMs, snapshots, performance realtime, eventos (warning/error 7 dias), top archivos y overcommit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dias_alerta_snapshot | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope constants such as the 7-day event window and, via the schema, the snapshot alert window, but it says nothing about the read-only nature, the cost/latency of running everything at once, or the failure behavior of a failed sub-check – which matters greatly for an all-in-one aggregator.
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, front-loaded with the verb and then the covered modules. Every item earns its place as the tool's scope, though the bare enumeration could have been trimmed in favor of one clarifying clause about intended use.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more, and it partially does by listing coverage. However it leaves the sole parameter unexplained and gives no sense of return structure or runtime cost, which an agent needs before choosing this broad tool over a targeted sibling.
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?
There is one parameter (dias_alerta_snapshot, default 3) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions or explains it. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 does not apply since a parameter exists and is 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 ('Ejecuta') and enumerates the exact resources covered (permisos, host, hardware, datastores, VMs, snapshots, performance, eventos, top archivos, overcommit), making it unmistakably the aggregate of the sibling tools. It does not explicitly name itself as the 'run-all' alternative to those siblings, but the enumeration does the differentiating work.
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: it never states when to prefer this aggregate over the individual siblings (e.g. first-pass triage vs. targeted follow-up), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implication that it is a full sweep is present but left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.