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_members

Read-only

List the VMs, containers, and storage devices inside a Proxmox pool. Use the pool id to retrieve all member resources of that pool.

Instructions

[READ] List the members of a pool (VMs, CTs, storage).

Args: poolid: Pool id (see pool_list). target: Proxmox target name from config.

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": {
      "poolid": "<poolid>"
    },
    "name": "pool_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
poolidYes
targetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add value by naming what is returned (VMs, CTs, storage), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or empty-pool 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the Args block is terse and scannable. Every line earns its place, though the arg list partially duplicates the schema.

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 no output schema, the description covers the purpose, both parameters, and the shape of the returned members. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: poolid is explained with a pointer to pool_list, and target is described as a Proxmox target name from config. The target explanation is slightly vague about valid values but conveys its origin.

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 the members of a pool') and scopes the return contents (VMs, CTs, storage), which separates it from pool_list, which enumerates pools rather than members. The differentiation is implied via the cross-reference rather than stated explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The only pointer is 'see pool_list' for resolving the poolid, which aids parameter lookup rather than tool selection.

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