proxmox_guest_featureCheck whether snapshot, clone, or copy is available for a VM or LXC container before attempting the operation.
Check if a feature (snapshot, clone, copy) is available for a VM (type=vm) or LXC container (type=lxc)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node name where VM is located | |
| type | Yes | ||
| vmid | Yes | VM ID number | |
| feature | Yes | Feature to check (snapshot, clone, copy) |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the no-mutation aspect, but the description adds no behavioral detail such as return format, what 'available' means, or whether absence of support results in false versus an error. With no output schema, this gap is significant.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the entity types, and the full feature set without waste. It earns its place and is easy to scan.
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?
The description is sufficient for selecting and building the call: it identifies the type and feature parameters and the read-only nature is in annotations. However, with no output schema, the absence of any guidance about the response shape or the meaning of availability leaves the tool not fully self-contained.
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 75%, and the description mostly restates the schema's feature enum and type enum. It adds a mild semantic link between feature and VM/LXC but does not significantly clarify the parameters 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?
Clearly states a specific action (check if available) and resource (feature on VM/LXC), with the exact features enumerated. This distinguishes it from the many guest_* sibling tools like guest_status or guest_config, whose purposes are not availability checks.
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 implied use is 'before performing snapshot, clone, or copy,' but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus related actions or what to do if the feature is unavailable. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.