proxmox_aptUpdate, upgrade, or list available versions of APT packages on Proxmox nodes. Specify a node and optional package filter to manage package operations.
Manage APT packages. action=update(elevated)|upgrade(elevated): package ops | action=versions: list versions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node name | |
| action | Yes | ||
| package | No | Filter by package name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the elevated privilege requirement and notes that versions is a list operation, which is useful. It does not, however, disclose what upgrade changes, whether changes are reversible, or what system-level consequences may occur.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with 'Manage APT packages.' The action mapping is dense but mostly efficient; the phrase 'package ops' is vague filler and the inline pipe-separated format could be clearer, but the overall size is appropriate.
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 simple tool with no output schema, it covers the main actions and required node parameter. However, it does not clarify whether the optional package filter applies to all actions or only some, nor does it describe what result to expect from update/upgrade. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
The schema documents node and package, but the action enum has no per-value descriptions. The description supplies semantics for all three enum values and flags elevation, which is meaningful added value beyond the schema.
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 clearly identifies APT package management and enumerates the supported actions (update, upgrade, versions), which tells an agent what the tool can do. It falls short of 5 because 'Manage' is generic and update/upgrade are lumped under the vague phrase 'package ops' without defining their distinct effects.
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?
The action mapping provides some in-tool guidance, and 'elevated' hints at a privilege requirement. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what conditions should trigger update versus upgrade.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.