Retrieve VMware ESXi host hardware and configuration details, including CPU, memory, version, uptime, power policy, and storage controllers for diagnostics.
Host: fabricante, modelo, CPU (cores/hilos/HT), RAM total y usada, version y build de ESXi, uptime, politica de energia y controladoras de storage.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists return fields but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication or special permissions are required, or any side effects or rate limits. Only the content of the response is disclosed, not the operation's safety profile.
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?
The description is a single colon-led list of fields, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource name 'Host:' and then enumerates details efficiently, though the list format is dense rather than structured for quick scanning.
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 is the main source of truth. It does list the fields returned, which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but it omits any behavioral context such as read-only status, permissions, or output format. For a zero-parameter info tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline score of 4 applies per the rules. The description correctly adds no parameter information because none exist.
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?
The description enumerates exactly what host information is returned (fabricante, modelo, CPU cores/hilos/HT, RAM total/usada, versión/build ESXi, uptime, política de energía, controladoras de storage), which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like salud_hardware or config_host, but the field list distinguishes it as an inventory-style tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as salud_hardware, config_host, or performance. The description only says what data is available, leaving the agent to infer usage without any exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.