Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

VMware-Monitor

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_host_sensors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve hardware sensor readings—temperature, voltage, fan, and status—for all connected hosts, and identify hosts without sensors to check CIM server reporting.

Instructions

[READ] Get hardware sensor status (temperature, voltage, fan, ...) for all hosts.

Returns the list envelope with a real total; each row has host, sensor_name, type, reading, unit and status (green/yellow/red). No rows for a host is not "hardware is fine": every connected host that reports no sensors is listed in hosts_without_sensors with cim_server_running / cim_server_policy (the CIM Server, sfcbd-watchdog, supplies the sensors; null = not read), and sensors_note says what that means — quote it.

Use this for physical hardware only — for CPU/memory load use get_host_performance, and follow up on a red sensor with investigate_host to see the alarms and events around that host.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax sensor rows to return (None = all).
targetNovCenter/ESXi target from config (default if omitted).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.9.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Max sensor rows to return (None = all)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"vCenter/ESXi target from config (default if omitted)."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "items": {
-        "additionalProperties": true,
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "array"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "get_host_sensorsOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Addedv1.5.38

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the list envelope shape, the per-row fields, and crucially the warning that missing rows do NOT mean healthy hardware, plus the hosts_without_sensors / cim_server_running explanation and the instruction to quote sensors_note. This is exactly the kind of misinterpretation guard the annotations cannot express.

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-loads the [READ] marker and the core action, then layers return shape, the negative-result caveat, and routing guidance in short, dense sentences. No filler; every sentence carries operational value.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: envelope with total, per-row fields, and the hosts_without_sensors structure. Combined with the safety annotations and 100% param coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both parameters (limit, target) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or filtering detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ([READ] Get hardware sensor status) with the exact data domain (temperature, voltage, fan) and scope (all hosts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, get_host_performance, which handles CPU/memory load rather than physical hardware sensors.

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 ('physical hardware only'), names the alternative for the adjacent use case (get_host_performance for CPU/memory load), and prescribes a concrete follow-up workflow (investigate_host after a red sensor). Both routing decisions an agent faces are covered.

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