Retrieve current status details for a single Proxmox VM by vmid, optionally auto-locating its node and target.
[READ] Return current status detail for a single VM by vmid.
Args: vmid: Numeric Proxmox VM id (see vm_list). target: Proxmox target name from config. node: Node name; omit to auto-locate the VM across nodes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' prefix adds nothing. The description does contribute one genuinely useful behavioral detail: omitting 'node' triggers auto-location across nodes. It says nothing about what 'status detail' contains or how failures surface, which matters since there is no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact args list — every line earns its place. The '[READ]' tag is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped, but the overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition should describe what 'status detail' actually returns; instead the return content is left entirely vague. Parameters and read semantics are covered, but the missing return-shape information leaves a real gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and largely succeeds: vmid is defined as a numeric Proxmox VM id with a pointer to vm_list, target is tied to the config, and node's omission semantics are explained. 'target' remains somewhat abstract ('Proxmox target name from config'), keeping it short of a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Return current status detail for a single VM by vmid') and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from the list-oriented siblings such as vm_list and ct_list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with vm_config, which also targets one VM, so the differentiation is clear but not complete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It supplies one real usage cue — omit 'node' to auto-locate the VM across nodes — and points to vm_list for finding a vmid. However, it never states when to prefer this over vm_config or cluster_resources, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.