Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

vmware-nsx-security

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

remove_vm_tag

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an exact NSX tag scope/value pair from a VM to immediately update dynamic security group membership.

Instructions

[WRITE] Remove an NSX tag from a virtual machine.

Returns {"status": "removed", "vm_id", "scope", "tag"}, not the VM's remaining tags. Only the exact scope/value pair is removed — other tags survive. Removing a tag changes dynamic group membership immediately — groups with tag Conditions stop matching the VM — so re-check with get_group. Use list_vm_tags first to confirm the pair.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vm_idYesVM external ID (fabric UUID, from list_vm_tags).
targetNoOptional NSX Manager target from config.
tag_scopeYesScope of the tag to remove (e.g. 'env').
tag_valueYesValue of the tag to remove (e.g. 'production').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / tag_scope / description
      Added value: +"Scope of the tag to remove (e.g. 'env')."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tag_value / description
      Added value: +"Value of the tag to remove (e.g. 'production')."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"Optional NSX Manager target from config."
    • addedInput schema / properties / vm_id / description
      Added value: +"VM external ID (fabric UUID, from list_vm_tags)."
  2. Addedv1.5.38

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-readonly, and the description adds high-value behavioral context: the return-value shape (and that remaining tags are NOT returned), exact-pair-only deletion, and the immediate side-effect that dynamic group membership changes. The '[WRITE]' marker and 'Remove' wording align with readOnlyHint=false, so no contradiction exists.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: core action first, return-value clarification second, side-effect plus mitigation third. There is no filler and no redundant restating of schema content.

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 compensates by spelling out the exact return value and what it does NOT return — essential for correct agent interpretation. It also covers prerequisites, the destructive membership consequence, and verification steps, making it complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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% and the schema descriptions are already rich (vm_id sourced from list_vm_tags, scope/value examples), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds modest value by emphasizing 'exact scope/value pair' removal but does not add anything about the optional 'target' parameter.

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 a specific verb+resource statement, 'Remove an NSX tag from a virtual machine,' and then sharpens it with exact-match semantics: 'Only the exact scope/value pair is removed — other tags survive.' This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like apply_vm_tag and list_vm_tags without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

The description provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use list_vm_tags first to confirm the pair' as a precondition and 're-check with get_group' to verify the post-condition. It omits an explicit when-not statement naming apply_vm_tag as the inverse alternative, though the tool name and sibling list make that inference easy.

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

Install Server

Other Tools