Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esxi-readonly-mcp

esxi-readonly-mcp

by nicolasboattini
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

verificar_permisos

Verify which user connects to an ESXi host and whether that account has write privileges, helping confirm read-only access before diagnostics.

Instructions

Muestra con que usuario se conecta y si ese usuario tiene privilegios de escritura en ESXi.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verificar_permisos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two pieces of information returned (connected user and write-privilege status), which implies a non-mutating check, but it says nothing about required credentials, whether it makes any changes, or how the privilege check is performed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the dual output (user identity and write privileges). Nothing in it is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does so for both returned facts. It falls short only on operational context such as side effects or failure behavior, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter read/check tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing additional the description could clarify about inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it shows which user the connection is authenticated as and whether that user has write privileges on ESXi. That is concrete and distinguishable from data-listing siblings such as host_info, datastores or config_host, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the many diagnostic siblings (salud_hardware, diagnostico_completo, config_host). The use case of validating access before attempting writes is only weakly implied by the word 'permisos', with no explicit when/when-not statement.

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