io.github.AIops-tools/proxmox-aiops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

next_vmid

Read-only

Find an available VMID for a new Proxmox VM or container to avoid ID conflicts before creation. Provide the Proxmox target from your config.

Instructions

[READ] Return a free VMID for a new guest (/cluster/nextid).

Args: target: Proxmox target name from config.

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": "next_vmid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read. The description's '[READ]' tag merely restates that annotation, and it adds no other behavioral context such as whether the returned ID is reserved/claimed, whether repeated calls return the same value, or any rate limits. Only the endpoint reference adds marginal value.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, endpoint and arg second. Nothing is padded, though the '[READ]' prefix and the 'Args:' block are somewhat boilerplate for a single optional parameter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys purpose and the parameter's meaning. It omits how the returned VMID is meant to be consumed and the behavior of the optional target, leaving modest gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does partially by explaining 'target: Proxmox target name from config.' However it does not clarify the format, whether it is optional (schema default is null), or what happens when omitted, so the compensation is incomplete.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Return a free VMID for a new guest') and even cites the backing endpoint (/cluster/nextid). It is unambiguous what the tool produces, though it does not name a sibling for differentiation (which is arguably unnecessary here since no sibling does the same thing).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g. 'call before vm_clone or guest creation'). The usage is only implied by 'for a new guest'. No when-not conditions are given.

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