proxmox_node_serviceList services on a Proxmox node, or start, stop, and restart specific services such as pveproxy, ssh, and pvedaemon.
Manage node services. action=list: list services | action=control: start/stop/restart a service (elevated)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node name | |
| action | Yes | ||
| command | No | Service command | |
| service | No | Service name (e.g., pveproxy, ssh, pvedaemon) |
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 the operation as non-read-only and destructive, so the description's main contribution is specifying that control actions require elevated privileges. It helpfully separates the read-only 'list' mode from the mutating 'control' mode, but does not elaborate on effects such as service disruption or failure states.
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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and uses compact action groupings to cover both modes. Every phrase carries useful information, with no filler or redundant restatement.
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 moderately complex tool with two branching actions{tabular} and a destructive hint, the description covers the basic semantics but omits conditional parameter dependencies (e.g., control requires command and service) and expected output or error behavior. It is adequate for initial selection but not fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explicitly tying 'control' to 'start/stop/restart' and noting elevated access, but it does not explain the conditional requirement that command and service are likely needed only when action=control.
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 the resource ('node services') and enumerates the two action modes: listing services and controlling a service via start/stop/restart. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like proxmox_node_power or proxmox_node_config, as 'service' is explicitly scoped.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any sibling tools named. The description implies usage through the action modes, but there is no explicit 'use this for X, not Y' direction, leaving the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.