List snapshots for QEMU or LXC guests, including parent-child relationships, to inspect and manage snapshot chains.
List guest snapshots and their parent relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| guest_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the detail about 'parent relationships,' giving a hint about the output structure. No other behavioral traits like pagination or ordering are mentioned, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.
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 with zero wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the description is appropriately brief for a simple listing tool.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description is minimal but sufficient for a straightforward listing operation. However, the parameters are not explained at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, an agent might be uncertain about parameter semantics. The description could be more helpful by clarifying parameters or the meaning of 'parent relationships.'
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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The schema provides types, a pattern for node, min/max for vmid, and an enum for guest_type, but the description adds no additional meaning. It doesn't clarify that vmid is the guest ID or that guest_type selects between QEMU and LXC. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but fails to.
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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'guest snapshots' with an additional detail about 'parent relationships.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_guests and list_storage_content, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for snapshot listing, but lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements. For a listing tool, this is adequate but could be improved by noting it requires a specific guest and is for snapshot management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.