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

pool_list

Read-only

List Proxmox VE resource pools with poolid and comment, enabling auditing and organization of VMs and containers.

Instructions

[READ] List resource pools (poolid + comment).

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": "pool_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely duplicates that. The description does add the return payload shape (poolid + comment), but says nothing about pagination, empty states, or target resolution behavior.

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?

Two terse lines with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The '[READ]' tag is redundant with annotations and the Args block is spartan, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the single parameter's meaning. Adequate, though it could note the relationship to pool_members.

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 schema documents only 'target' as a nullable string with no semantics. The description partially compensates with 'Proxmox target name from config', clarifying where the value originates, but gives no format examples or default behavior.

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+resource ('List resource pools') and even names the returned fields (poolid + comment), which implicitly separates it from the sibling pool_members. It does not, however, explicitly say it is not pool_members, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance and never mentions the closely related pool_members tool. The only hint is the '[READ]' tag, which is a read-only marker rather than usage direction.

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