VMware-AIops

vm_list_plans

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all pending and failed plans with summaries including plan ID, creation time, status, step count, and affected VMs. Stale plans older than 24 hours are auto-cleaned.

Instructions

[READ] List all pending/failed plans.

Returns plan summaries (plan_id, created_at, status, steps count, VMs affected). Stale plans (>24h) are auto-cleaned.

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": "vm_list_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.5.29May 29, 2026
Removedv1.5.28May 22, 2026
Addedv1.5.18May 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that stale plans older than 24 hours are auto-cleaned, which is valuable behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loads the [READ] tag, and every word adds value. No superfluous information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers functionality, return format, and an important behavioral note (auto-clean). Complete for the context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds no parameter details. However, schema coverage is 100% and the description explains what the list returns, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it lists pending/failed plans with a [READ] tag, and summarizes returned fields like plan_id, created_at, status, steps count, and VMs affected. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_create_plan or vm_apply_plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for inspecting pending/failed plans, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.