Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

io.github.zw008/vmware-debug

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

open_case

Starts a structured VMware incident investigation by defining the event, affected objects, and time window, returning a case ID for root-cause analysis.

Instructions

[WRITE] Open an investigation case — step 01, define the event.

WHEN: at the start of an incident you expect to reason about rather than glance at. For a one-off lookup use build_incident_timeline alone.

RETURNS: {case_id, path, state, grade, ceiling, ceiling_reasons, next}. Read ceiling now — it is the best grade this install can reach at all.

GOTCHAS: writes only under $OPS_HOME, never to a VMware system, and never over an existing case.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectsNoEntities in scope, names or MoIDs ("vm-web01", "host-12"). Omit for a case not yet pinned to specific objects.
summaryYesWhat is wrong, one line. plan_case reads it to infer the symptom category, so name the symptom in the estate's own words ("datastore latency on cluster-a"), not a diagnosis.
window_endNoBelieved end, ISO-8601. Omit while still in progress.
window_startNoWhen the incident is believed to have started, ISO-8601. Omit if unknown — evidence gets fetched against it, so an invented window is worse than none.
determined_byYesHOW the scope was decided — "user report", "vCenter alarm 42". Required: a scope from a phone call and one from an alarm id support different conclusions, and nobody remembers which it was later.
product_versionsNoVersions keyed by product — {"esxi": "8.0.3"} — plus "driver.<name>" / "firmware.<name>" entries. Knowledge-base entries are version-checked against this: one constraining a product absent here can support a hypothesis but never make the case Confirmed, since an unanswerable constraint is not a pass.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.3.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further with GOTCHAS that the annotations cannot express: writes are confined to $OPS_HOME, never touch a VMware system, and never overwrite an existing case. It also tells the agent to read `ceiling` immediately and explains what that field means, which is real behavioral guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with a [WRITE] tag and purpose, then cleanly segmented into WHEN / RETURNS / GOTCHAS blocks. Every sentence carries load; 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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return keys and flagging the one the agent must read. Combined with write-scope caveats and the routing to build_incident_timeline, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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%, so every parameter (summary, window_start/end, determined_by, objects, product_versions) is already explained with rationale in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Open an investigation case') and positions it as 'step 01, define the event' in a named workflow. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling build_incident_timeline for one-off lookups, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 WHEN block states the trigger ('at the start of an incident you expect to reason about rather than glance at') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('For a one-off lookup use build_incident_timeline alone'). No inference required.

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