proxmox_guest_listList all virtual machines and containers across a Proxmox cluster with their current status. Filter by node or VM type to narrow results.
List all virtual machines and containers across the cluster with their status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Optional: filter by specific node | |
| type | No | VM type filter | all |
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?
readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that the call spans the whole cluster and returns status for VMs and containers, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or scale considerations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb, resource, scope, and returned status information efficiently.
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 read-only list with zero required parameters, full schema descriptions, and an enum, this is largely complete. Some output-structure and scale details are missing, but the description and schema give enough to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, including a documented enum for type and a description for node. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries that burden.
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?
States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('all virtual machines and containers across the cluster') and specifies that status is included. This distinguishes it from single-guest tools like proxmox_guest_status and node/cluster inventory tools.
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 description implies a cluster-wide inventory use case but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like proxmox_guest_status exist, but no routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.