proxmox_node_subscriptionRetrieve, set, or delete a Proxmox node subscription key to manage licensing. Get current subscription status, apply a new key, or remove an existing one directly via API.
Manage node subscription. action=get: get info | action=set: set key (elevated) | action=delete: remove (elevated)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Subscription key | |
| node | Yes | Node name | |
| action | Yes |
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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by marking set/delete as requiring elevated privileges and by spelling out that delete 'removes' the subscription key, going beyond what the annotations provide.
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, well-structured line that front-loads the purpose and uses pipe-separated action mappings for readability. Every word contributes, with no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 three actions are explained and annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. However, the description does not state what 'get info' returns, whether a 'set' replaces an existing key, or what side effects 'delete' has beyond removal. For a mutable tool with a destructive action, more effect-level detail would improve completeness.
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 descriptions cover node and key but not the action parameter. The description maps each enum value to a plain-language operation ('get info', 'set key', 'remove') and notes elevation requirements, adding real semantic value beyond the schema's bare enum list.
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 resource ('node subscription') and enumerates concrete operations ('get info', 'set key', 'remove'). Sibling tools all relate to different resources, so there is no confusion, though the verb 'Manage' is generic and no explicit sibling contrast is made.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not state prerequisites or conditions for each action. The only usage hint is the word 'elevated' for set/delete, which is a permission note rather than situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.