Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

io.github.zw008/vmware-debug

case_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate the next diagnostic steps for a VMware case, adapting after each evidence submission and listing unreachable sources for manual supply.

Instructions

[READ] What to fetch next for this case — step 02, recomputed each call.

WHEN: right after case_open, and again after each round of evidence. It is not a checklist: submit something and the next plan is shorter, lose a source and it routes around it.

RETURNS: {category, category_signals, steps, already_covered, held_back, unavailable, ceiling, note}. Steps are interleaved across evidence classes, so you get breadth before depth — corroboration is counted in distinct sources, which is what actually moves the grade. Each step is {evidence_class, skill, tool, purpose, objects, window, degraded} — call that skill's tool, then submit the result with case_submit_evidence.

GOTCHAS: unavailable is the important half. A source this install cannot reach is listed there with how_to_supply rather than left out, so the gap is visible now instead of when the conclusion refuses to firm up. An empty steps is never silent — note says whether everything reachable is already in, or whether nothing here can be reached. category_signals names the words that chose the category, and any category that also matched — check it first, since the rest runs off that one word.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_idYesThe case to plan for (from case_open/case_list).
categoryNoForce the symptom class instead of inferring it. Exactly one of: storage, network, compute, ha_drs, configuration, accelerator, kubernetes, hardware, host_lifecycle, power_lifecycle, auth, platform, licensing, data_collection. Omit to infer, then read `category_signals` for the word that decided it.
max_stepsNoHow many steps to return, at least 1. The default of 6 is two rounds across three evidence classes — enough to reach the two independent sources a Probable grade costs, without handing a model a fourteen-item menu it will work through. Raise it when `held_back` says there is more for this category; a storage case has fourteen reachable tools. Below 1 is refused rather than obeyed, because an empty plan already means "nothing left to fetch".
available_skillsNoNarrow to the skills actually installed, in either spelling ("monitor" or "vmware-monitor"). Omit to assume all of them, which can produce steps this install cannot run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.13.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / category / description
      Previous value: -"Force the symptom class instead of inferring it. Exactly one of: storage, network, compute, ha_drs, configuration, accelerator, kubernetes, hardware, host_lifecycle, power_lifecycle, auth, platform. Omit to infer, then read `category_signals` for the word that decided it."New value: +"Force the symptom class instead of inferring it. Exactly one of: storage, network, compute, ha_drs, configuration, accelerator, kubernetes, hardware, host_lifecycle, power_lifecycle, auth, platform, licensing, data_collection. Omit to infer, then read `category_signals` for the word that decided it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / max_steps / description
      Previous value: -"HAS NO EFFECT in this release — accepted but never forwarded to the planner, which always caps at 6. The result's note may still advise raising it; doing so changes nothing. Read `held_back` for how many steps were cut."New value: +"How many steps to return, at least 1. The default of 6 is two rounds across three evidence classes — enough to reach the two independent sources a Probable grade costs, without handing a model a fourteen-item menu it will work through. Raise it when `held_back` says there is more for this category; a storage case has fourteen reachable tools. Below 1 is refused rather than obeyed, because an empty plan already means \"nothing left to fetch\"."
    • changedInput schema / title
      Previous value: -"_case_plan_implArguments"New value: +"case_planArguments"
  2. Addedv1.11.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: recomputation, routing around lost sources, the meaning of unavailable, and the guarantee that empty steps is never silent. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 structured sections (WHEN, RETURNS, GOTCHAS) front-load the purpose and every sentence adds operational value. Despite length, it is tightly organized with no 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 plan-generating tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return fields, per-step shape, how to proceed, and edge cases. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains case_id, category, max_steps, and available_skills in detail. The description reinforces workflow context but adds no new parameter-level semantics, 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 'What to fetch next for this case — step 02, recomputed each call,' stating a specific verb and resource. This clearly identifies it as a plan-generation tool, distinct from siblings like case_get or case_timeline which retrieve existing state.

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?

WHEN explicitly says to call right after case_open and after each evidence round, and describes how the plan updates after submissions. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit exclusion cases, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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