Retrieve published application pools from VMware Horizon VDI, including IDs, names, farms, enabled status, and executable paths, with pagination for large inventories.
[READ] List published application pools: id, name, farm, enabled, executable path. Paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 50). | |
| offset | No | Page offset. | |
| target | No | Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior and the returned field set, which is useful, but says nothing further about permissions, limits, or errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence: the [READ] tag and core action come first, followed by returned fields and pagination. Nothing is padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only paginated list tool with full schema descriptions and rich annotations, the description covers what it is, what it returns, and that results are paged. Only explicit sibling routing is missing, which is minor here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters (limit, offset, target) are documented in the schema. The description only echoes pagination via "Paginated" and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (list application pools) and enumerates returned fields (id, name, farm, enabled, executable path), which distinguishes it from sibling list_desktop_pools. It never explicitly names that sibling as the alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word "published" implies scope and the read tag implies a read-only listing, so usage is implied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to list_desktop_pools for non-application pools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.