Get detailed Proxmox node status by specifying the node name, yielding key metrics for homelab monitoring and management.
Get detailed Proxmox node status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Proxmox node name | |
| endpoint | No | Proxmox endpoint name from config (optional when exactly one is configured) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get', but does not explain return shape, pagination, authentication requirements, failure behavior, or what 'detailed status' includes.
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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action and resource directly, which is appropriate for a simple status-retrieval tool.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, missing output schema, and the existence of closely related sibling tools, this description is too sparse. It does not clarify when to prefer this tool, what 'detailed' status includes, or how the optional endpoint parameter behaves.
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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about node or endpoint beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get detailed Proxmox node status'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like proxmox_status, though the 'node' subject creates reasonable distinction.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_status or proxmox_guests. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.