vmware-avi

list_service_engines

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Service Engines (AVI data-plane VMs) on the Controller to inventory capacity or find an SE's name and IP. Returns Name, management IP, status, and SE Group per SE.

Instructions

[READ] List Service Engines (AVI data-plane VMs) on the Controller.

Returns Name, management IP, status (e.g. OPER_UP) and SE Group per SE, in one call that cannot be paged or filtered. Use to inventory capacity or find an SE's name and IP — use get_service_engine_health instead for degraded VS health.

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": "list_service_engines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.4.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the call 'cannot be paged or filtered' and by naming the status values returned (e.g. OPER_UP) — a genuine operational constraint an agent must plan around.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource scope, then returns, then usage routing. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the name.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs is missing. The description adds the non-pageable/non-filterable constraint and the sibling routing that the structured fields cannot express.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly implies the tool is invoked without input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Service Engines') and immediately disambiguates the domain term by glossing it as 'AVI data-plane VMs on the Controller'. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from get_service_engine_health at a glance.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('inventory capacity or find an SE's name and IP') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('use get_service_engine_health instead for degraded VS health'). Nothing is left to inference.

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