Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

VMware-Monitor

get_ntp_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check per-host NTP configuration health, including configured servers and ntpd service state, to identify misconfigured or unreachable hosts and inconsistent time sources.

Instructions

[READ] Per-host NTP configuration health (servers + ntpd service state).

Returns the list envelope; every matching host is enumerated, so truncated is always False. Each row has host, reachable, ntp_servers, ntpd_running, ntpd_policy and a healthy flag (servers configured AND ntpd running). The SOAP API does not expose live clock offset or stratum — this is configuration health only; for actual offset use esxcli on the host.

healthy/ntp_servers/ntpd_running are null — not false/empty — for a host vCenter could not reach or could not read. Null means nothing was observed; false means NTP is misconfigured. Filtering rows for healthy == false will not surface the unread ones, so check the envelope's hosts_unreachable and hosts_unreadable counts (with unreachable_note / unreadable_note) before reporting the estate as healthy. Unreachable: vCenter cannot reach the host (reachable false). Unreadable: this account cannot read the host's state (reachable null) — not known to be down.

The envelope's ntp_sources_consistent compares hosts with each other: false when hosts that have servers configured use different ones (each row can still be healthy — this is how clocks drift apart), with ntp_sources_note naming which host uses which servers; null when fewer than two hosts have servers to compare.

Prefer this over get_host_services for time problems: that tool reports whether ntpd runs but not which servers are configured. Fixing NTP is a write; use vmware-aiops.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNovCenter/ESXi target from config (default if omitted).
host_nameNoFilter to a single host by exact name (None = all hosts).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious context: truncated is always False, null-vs-false semantics for unreadable hosts, hosts_unreachable/hosts_unreadable envelope counts, and ntp_sources_consistent cross-host comparison. This is exactly the behavioral detail 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the purpose and the return envelope, then handles edge cases in dense but relevant prose. It is long, but nearly every sentence addresses a real semantic trap (null vs false, unreachable vs unreadable); minor tightening is possible but little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, enumerating each row field, the healthy flag logic, and the envelope-level counts/notes. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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 params (target, host_name) are already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states for these two filters.

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 ("Per-host NTP configuration health (servers + ntpd service state)") and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting the SOAP API does not expose clock offset. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus get_host_services 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: "Prefer this over get_host_services for time problems," plus the exclusion (not for live offset — use esxcli) and the write boundary ("Fixing NTP is a write; use vmware-aiops"). This covers when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives all in one place.

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