Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vmware-aria

vmware-aria

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_resource_riskbadge

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the risk badge score (0–100) for a resource to predict performance degradation or availability issues. Use this when you need only the risk score and color, without health and efficiency data.

Instructions

[READ] Get the risk badge score for a resource (0–100, higher = more risk of future problems).

The risk badge predicts likelihood of performance degradation or availability issues based on current trends and workload patterns. Returns risk_score and risk_color for the one resource. Use this when the risk number is all you want; get_resource_health returns health and efficiency alongside it. The score is null when Aria has not computed a risk badge, and the badge does not say what is wrong — use list_alerts(resource_id=...) for the contributing alerts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "resource_id": "<resource_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_resource_riskbadge"
  }
}

Input 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return fields risk_score and risk_color, the null behavior when Aria has not computed a badge, and the limitation that the badge does not explain what is wrong. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and using short, information-dense sentences. It covers purpose, return values, usage guidance, null cases, and alternatives without redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the score means, what fields are returned, when the value is null, and which sibling tool to use for more detail. The annotations and schema handle the remaining context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents resource_id as 'The resource UUID' and target as the Aria target name. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get the risk badge score for a resource', which clearly identifies the operation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_resource_health by noting it returns only the risk number, not health and efficiency.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when the risk number is all you want.' It also names the alternative get_resource_health and provides a use-case boundary, and directs users to list_alerts when they need contributing alerts, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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