homebutler

by Higangssh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

proxmox_task_status

Read-only

Inspect an asynchronous Proxmox task by node and opaque UPID to retrieve its status and outcome.

Instructions

Inspect one asynchronous Proxmox task by node and opaque UPID

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>",
      "node": "<node>",
      "upid": "<upid>"
    },
    "name": "proxmox_task_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node`	Yes	Proxmox node name
`upid`	Yes	Opaque Proxmox task UPID
`endpoint`	Yes	Explicit Proxmox endpoint name from config

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.23.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the task is asynchronous and keyed by an opaque UPID, but it does not describe return details such as task state, exit status, or log availability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only inspection tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity read-only status tool with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is enough to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention what the inspected status contains, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description repeats node and opaque UPID but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, and does not mention endpoint; the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (one asynchronous Proxmox task) scoped by node and opaque UPID. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling proxmox_tasks list tool, though it does not name that alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: inspect a single task when you already have its node and UPID. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus proxmox_tasks or other Proxmox tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.