Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.AIops-tools/proxmox-aiops

io.github.AIops-tools/proxmox-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ct_list

Read-only

List LXC containers with details like name, vmid, status, CPU, and memory. Optionally filter by Proxmox target or node.

Instructions

[READ] List LXC containers with name, vmid, status, cpu, mem.

Args: target: Proxmox target name from config; omit to use the default. node: Node name; omit to use the configured default / all nodes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ct_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeNo
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so "[READ]" is largely redundant. The description does add the return-field set, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or failure behavior (e.g., unreachable target). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Front-loaded verb+resource on line one, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields. For a zero-required-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only return volume/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining both optional parameters and their default/fallback semantics (target from config, node default or all nodes). It stops short of giving node name syntax or format examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List LXC containers") and enumerates the returned fields (name, vmid, status, cpu, mem), which distinguishes it from sibling vm_list (VMs, not containers). It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The Args section gives real per-parameter guidance (omit target to use the config default; omit node for the configured default / all nodes), which is usable context. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over vm_list or other list tools, so usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools