Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

vmware-aria

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_resource_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve health, risk, and efficiency scores for a resource, including service status and availability when applicable, to assess its current condition.

Instructions

[READ] Get the health, risk, and efficiency badge scores for a resource.

Returns the three scores and their colors, from the resource's badges[] array. Scores are 0–100 (higher = healthier for HEALTH). Use this when the scores are all you need; use get_resource for the whole object, or list_alerts(resource_id=...) for what drove a low score. A score is null (or -1) when Aria has not computed that badge — that does not mean healthy.

Badges score the alerts attached to the object, not a service's own state: a down service can show HEALTH GREEN 100. For a service object (kind containing SERVICE, e.g. VCENTER_APPLIANCE_HEALTH_SERVICES) the result also carries service: status (SERVICE|STATUS, e.g. green/orange), availability (latest SERVICE|AVAILABILITY), available (true for 1, false for 0, null when unknown) and read_errors. Read available, not the badge. service is null for other kinds. name and kind are included.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNoAria target name from config; default when omitted.
resource_idYesThe resource UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / resource_id / description
      Added value: +"The resource UUID."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"Aria target name from config; default when omitted."
  2. Addedv1.5.29
  3. Removedv1.5.28
  4. First observedv1.3.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: null/-1 semantics, badges measuring attached alerts rather than service state, a down service showing HEALTH GREEN 100, and service-object fields with advice to 'Read available, not the badge.' This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, then edge-case semantics. Every sentence carries meaningful information; even the caveats about null scores and service objects earn their place given there is no output schema.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly: it names the returned scores, explains null/-1, describes badge scope, covers the service-object variant, and notes included fields like name and kind. An agent has enough context to interpret the result correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies: both target and resource_id are already documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema is complete.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the health, risk, and efficiency badge scores for a resource.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly comparing to get_resource and list_alerts, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It states when to use this tool ('when the scores are all you need') and names the alternatives: get_resource for the whole object and list_alerts for what drove a low score. It also gives a concrete call example for list_alerts, making routing unambiguous.

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