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

esxi-readonly-mcp

by nicolasboattini
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vms

Lists all virtual machines with CPU, RAM, disk, VMware Tools, datastore, swap, and ballooning details to diagnose ESXi resource use and bottlenecks without writes.

Instructions

Todas las VMs: estado, vCPU, RAM asignada/activa/consumida, ballooning, swap, reservas/limites, VMware Tools, discos (provisionado vs usado, thin/thick, datastore, controladora) y espacio libre dentro del guest.

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": "vms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond return content: it does not state that it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether it queries live or cached data, or its cost/latency. It is a data enumeration, not a behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single sentence with no obvious filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded. But the dense mid-sentence enumeration of a dozen metrics reads as a data dump rather than structured, scannable guidance.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully lists the fields the tool returns (state, vCPU, RAM, ballooning, disks, guest free space), which is genuinely valuable for a no-arg read tool. Still, it omits any usage context and the read-only safety profile an agent would want before invoking it.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered scope.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource ('Todas las VMs') and enumerates the attributes it reports, so an agent can infer this returns a detailed VM inventory. However, it never states the action (list/get/report) and offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like host_info or performance, leaving the purpose implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as performance or datastores. The agent is given no signal for choosing this tool over its many siblings.

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