Retrieve VMware ESXi host events such as disk errors, VM restarts, alarms, tasks, and failed logins, with severity and date-range filters, to diagnose issues.
Eventos de ESXi (errores de disco, reinicios de VMs, alarmas, tareas, logins fallidos). nivel: todos | warning (warning y error) | error. Fechas corregidas por el desfase del reloj de ESXi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dias | No | ||
| nivel | No | todos | |
| max_eventos | No | ||
| incluir_sesiones | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing that dates are corrected for ESXi clock skew and that events span disk errors, reboots, alarms, tasks, and failed logins. It does not state that this is a read-only query, nor anything about return volume or pagination. Useful context, but not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the resource definition before the filtering detail. No wasted words. The parenthetical examples and the clock-skew note both earn their place.
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?
For a four-parameter read query with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the time window ('dias'), the result cap ('max_eventos'), and the session-inclusion flag ('incluir_sesiones'). It covers the event taxonomy and clock-skew correction but leaves those three defaults uninterpretable.
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 compensate for all four parameters. It partially does: 'nivel' values (todos | warning | error) are explained, including that warning includes errors. But 'dias', 'max_eventos', and 'incluir_sesiones' are never clarified, leaving three of four parameters undocumented anywhere.
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?
Names a specific resource (ESXi events) and enumerates the kinds of events returned (disk errors, VM reboots, alarms, tasks, failed logins), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from monitoring siblings like salud_hardware or diagnostico_completo. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other diagnostic siblings. The only usage-adjacent content is the enumeration of 'nivel' values, which is filtering semantics rather than routing guidance. An agent receives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.