vmware-vks

list_vm_service_groups

Read-onlyIdempotent

[READ] List VirtualMachineGroup objects and their bootOrder in a Namespace.

Instructions

[READ] List VirtualMachineGroup objects and their bootOrder in a Namespace.

VM Service groups (vmoperator.vmware.com CRD, v1alpha4+) via the Supervisor K8s API — the served CRD version is discovered at runtime. Returns the family list envelope: items of {name, namespace, boot_order, member_count} plus returned/total/truncated (walked to completion) and served_version. boot_order mirrors spec.bootOrder: an ordered list of {members: [{kind, name}], power_on_delay?}. Older Supervisors without v1alpha4 return a teaching error naming the required version.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "namespace": "<namespace>"
    },
    "name": "list_vm_service_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No	vCenter in config.yaml; omit for the default.
`namespace`	Yes	vSphere Namespace to list VM groups in (via list_namespaces).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: runtime CRD version discovery, the returned envelope structure including items, boot_order, member_count, returned/total/truncated, served_version, and a teaching error for older Supervisors. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers technical and return-value details efficiently. It is dense but each sentence contributes context, though the length is on the higher side for a list tool.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly with envelope fields, truncation semantics, and version discovery. It also covers the error behavior for older Supervisors, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 the schema already documents both the target and namespace parameters. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraints for those parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('VirtualMachineGroup objects and their bootOrder') with scope ('in a Namespace'). The resource and CRD identification make it clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools such as list_namespaces or list_vm_service_snapshots without needing to open schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose statement; it does not say when to prefer this over list_namespaces or other list tools.

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