proxmox_poolCreate, update, list, get, or delete Proxmox resource pools to organize and control access to VMs and containers.
Manage resource pools (list, get, create, update, delete)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| delete | No | List of settings to delete | |
| digest | No | Config digest | |
| poolid | No | Pool identifier | |
| comment | No | Pool description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0v1.2.2v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that this is not read-only, is potentially destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds the action list, but this mainly restates the schema's action enum and does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what a delete actually removes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the resource and the supported actions in a compact, scannable format.
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 multi-action CRUD tool with one required parameter only, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain action-to-parameter relationships, required fields per action, or what the tool returns.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for the main parameters, with about 80% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which parameters are required for each action or how the 'delete' parameter relates to the 'delete' action.
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 uses a clear verb ('Manage'), names the resource ('resource pools'), and enumerates the exact operations (list, get, create, update, delete). This gives the agent a solid understanding of what the tool does. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools such as proxmox_ceph_pool.
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 provided on when to use proxmox_pool versus related tools, nor any prerequisites or per-action conditions. The phrase 'Manage resource pools' implies a general use case but does not state when an agent should select this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.