VMware-Monitor

get_host_sensors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve hardware sensor status (temperature, voltage, fan) for all VMware hosts, including readings and green/yellow/red status, and flag hosts that report no sensors.

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.

interpretation_note bounds what a red aggregate memory sensor proves: it does not identify a DIMM/slot, establish ECC errors, or predict failure. Keep observed status separate from a component diagnosis.

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.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_host_sensors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max sensor rows to return (None = all).
`target`	No	vCenter/ESXi target from config (default if omitted).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.9.2Aug 31, 2026

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

Addedv1.5.38Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is semantic rather than safety. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the envelope carries a true ``total``, absent rows are surfaced in ``hosts_without_sensors`` with ``cim_server_running``/``cim_server_policy`` (null = not read), and ``sensors_note`` must be quoted — precisely the trap an agent would otherwise fall into.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then progressively narrows to return shape and interpretation limits. It is longer than typical for a 2-parameter read, but each paragraph carries a distinct caution (absent rows, red-sensor overreach, sibling routing), so almost nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape itself — and it does: envelope with total, per-row fields (host, sensor_name, type, reading, unit, status), plus the two side-channel fields. It also bounds interpretation of a red aggregate memory sensor, which is the single most likely misread.

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% with inline descriptions for both limit and target, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description implies breadth-scope ('for all hosts') but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior for either parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource — get hardware sensor status (temperature, voltage, fan) across all hosts — and immediately scopes it away from get_host_performance (CPU/memory load). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from every sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing is given in both directions: 'Use this for physical hardware only — for CPU/memory load use get_host_performance', plus a follow-up path 'on a red sensor, use investigate_host'. The when-to-use, when-not-to-use and next-step are all stated.

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