Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

VMware-Monitor

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

ntp_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check per-host NTP configuration health across VMware hosts, verifying NTP servers are set and ntpd service is running to identify misconfigured or unreachable hosts.

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 count and unreachable_note before reporting the estate as healthy.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.9.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / host_name / description
      Added value: +"Filter to a single host by exact name (None = all hosts)."
    • 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": "ntp_statusOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Addedv1.6.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: every host is enumerated so truncated is always False, null vs false semantics for unreachable hosts, and the need to check hosts_unreachable/unreachable_note before declaring the estate healthy. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The [READ] prefix and first line front-load purpose, then flow into return shape, null semantics, and routing guidance in logical order. Although longer than minimal, every sentence contributes an operational detail the agent needs; nothing feels 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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies the return envelope, row fields, the healthy flag logic, null behavior for unreachable hosts, and the unreachable-host caveat. For a two-optional-parameter read tool, this is complete and actionable.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both params have descriptions (target from config; host_name filter by exact name). The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the full semantic burden, so 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 and resource: reports per-host NTP configuration health covering servers and ntpd service state. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_host_services for time problems, so the agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: prefer this over get_host_services for time problems because it covers configured servers plus ntpd state, use esxcli for live clock offset, and use vmware-aiops for fixes. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vmware-skills/VMware-Monitor'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server