Proxmox VE MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource type (VM, container, storage, cluster, etc.). Overlapping operations like stop_vm vs shutdown_vm vs pause_vm are clearly differentiated by their descriptions, and workflow tools are uniquely named and scoped.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_vm, delete_vm, list_snapshots_container). However, several tools deviate with noun-first names like storage_content, task_status, and cluster_health, which mix conventions and slightly reduce predictability.
Tool Count1/5
With 65 tools, this server is extremely heavy and exceeds the typical scope for a single MCP server. Even for a complex domain like Proxmox, the number is overwhelming and would benefit from splitting into smaller, focused servers (e.g., vm_management, container_management, cluster_management).
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for VMs, containers, storage, cluster health, nodes, and security, including create, read, update, delete, snapshots, and operational actions. Workflow tools for provisioning, backup, and cluster checks fill higher-level gaps, leaving few obvious missing operations.
Average 3.3/5 across 65 of 65 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It only states a high-level purpose and fails to disclose what settings are modified, whether the operation is destructive, or if any regeneration is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action without redundancy. It is structurally sound, but the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is far too sparse for a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It lacks information about invocation context, parameter constraints, and relationship to sibling Cloud-Init tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain any of the 12 parameters. Parameters like citype, cicustom, and ciupgrade remain undefined, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Configure Cloud-Init settings') and provides a general context ('automated OS setup'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_cloudinit_config_vm or regenerate_cloudinit_vm, which also relate to Cloud-Init.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the VM must exist or be stopped, nor does it reference related operations like get or regenerate Cloud-Init.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'configure' without revealing that this likely modifies the container's network configuration, whether changes require a restart, or any potential side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to parse, though the brevity sacrifices substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what settings are affected, how they are applied, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to any of the 13 parameters. Parameter names like ip, gw, and bridge are self-explanatory but the description does not explain their relationships, formats, or default behaviors, forcing the agent to rely on guesses.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures network adapter settings for an LXC container, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_dns_container and configure_features_container by focusing on the network adapter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the unprivileged default, which is already visible in the schema, and says nothing about side effects, permissions, start behavior, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. However, the second sentence duplicates schema information and the entire text is under-specified for a tool with 21 parameters, so it does not fully earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex creation tool with 21 parameters, 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine required arguments, default networking/storage behavior, or post-creation actions from the text alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 21 parameters. The description does not explain the required 'node' and 'ostemplate' parameters, nor common options like 'rootfs', 'net0', or 'start'. It merely restates the 'unprivileged' default from the schema, adding no parameter-level value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('new LXC container'), clearly distinguishing it from VM creation tools like create_vm. 'Default unprivileged=True' adds a relevant detail. Purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_vm, clone_container, or template_container. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavioral implications. It only states the action without explaining side effects, such as whether the snapshot includes memory state (vmstate parameter), impact on a running VM, or storage requirements. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters. It is concise in form but lacks substance beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, this one-line description is grossly inadequate. The tool needs context on snapshot behavior, parameter semantics, and preconditions to be safely invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (node, vmid, snapname, vmstate, description). The name and description do not hint at parameter roles or formats, leaving the schema as the only source, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a snapshot of a virtual machine' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by targeting VMs (as opposed to containers) and by using 'create' rather than list/rollback/delete snapshot operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternative snapshot operations (e.g., list_snapshots_vm, rollback_snapshot_vm) or VM management actions. The description gives no context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but only states that it configures flags. It does not mention that this is a mutation, whether flags are overwritten, if a container restart is required, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant text. However, the brevity detracts from completeness; it could have listed all flags or provided a brief usage hint while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks the full set of flags, no usage context, and no behavioral or return information, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It lists three flags (nesting, keyctl, fuse) but omits mknod and mount, and does not explain the required node and vmid parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool configures feature flags for an LXC container, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_network_container or update_resources_container, though it omits some flags (mknod, mount) present in the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to specify node and vmid, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other container configuration tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, whether the VM starts automatically, resource requirements, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place but lacks the depth needed for a tool of this complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite high tool complexity (15 parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a bare action statement. It fails to convey what the creation involves, any prerequisites, or what the caller should expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 15 parameters. It only repeats 'specified node' without explaining syntax, defaults, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create') and resource ('QEMU virtual machine') with a qualifier ('on a specified node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_container and clone_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or context for selection are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('attach') without revealing important behavioral traits such as whether the VM must be stopped, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. It lacks context that would help an agent anticipate risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, and front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters and is a mutating operation on a VM, but the description offers no context about return values, prerequisites (e.g., VM must exist), or the impact of the operation. The lack of an output schema and the purely terse description leave the agent underinformed about how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters like 'storage', 'size', 'disk_type', or how they affect the operation. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema, which fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Attach a new virtual disk volume to a VM' uses a specific verb ('attach') and resource ('virtual disk volume' to a 'VM'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like resize_vm_disk and move_vm_disk. It fully captures the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like resize_vm_disk or move_vm_disk. The usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Clone an existing LXC container or template' without revealing whether it performs a full or linked clone, whether the source must be stopped, or what side effects occur. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits critical details about required inputs, clone behavior, target node, storage, and potential consequences, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no explanation of any parameters in the description, the agent must infer meanings from parameter names alone. The description adds no semantic value for the 9 parameters, making correct parameter usage uncertain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Clone') and the resource ('existing LXC container or template'). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'clone_vm' by specifying LXC containers, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'clone_vm' or 'template_container'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Fetch' but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though perhaps too brief for the tool's requirements, but it earns its place by stating the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters. The description fails to explain the return format, what configuration settings are included, or how the response should be interpreted, making it incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no meaning beyond the parameter names 'node' and 'vmid'. There is no explanation of expected formats, units, or how values are used, so the agent must infer entirely from names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches configuration settings of a QEMU virtual machine, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('configuration settings of a QEMU virtual machine'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_vm_status (status) and get_container_config (container config).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or compare it to related tools like get_vm_status or get_container_config.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'Fetch' but does not state whether it is read-only, what data is returned, error behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'detailed runtime status' includes, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites such as node/vmid validity. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too many gaps for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'node' and 'vmid'. At 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter context, relying on the agent's prior knowledge of QEMU/Proxmox terminology.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed runtime status of a QEMU virtual machine'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vm_config (configuration) and list_vms (listing). However, it does not explicitly explain what 'runtime status' includes, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vm_config or get_container_status. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 simply says 'migrate' without explaining whether the VM can run during migration (live vs. offline), how local disks are handled, storage requirements, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the limited information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, optional flags, live migration implications) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, side effects, and return value, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for any parameter. Terms like 'node,' 'target,' 'online,' 'storage,' and 'with_local_disks' are left undefined, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning and defaults. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'migrate' and clearly states the resource ('a virtual machine') and the destination ('another node in the cluster'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_vm_disk or clone_vm. It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_vm_disk or clone_vm. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., shared storage) or exclusions. There is no context about maintenance windows or impact on VM availability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Reboot a running QEMU virtual machine.' It does not state whether the reboot is graceful or forced, whether a confirmation parameter is required, what happens if the VM is not running, or any side effects like data loss. The presence of a 'confirm' boolean in the schema is not explained, and the description provides no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It clearly states the core action and resource, earning its place, though it is extremely terse and leaves out important detail (penalized in other dimensions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a VM reboot tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the confirmation flag, the expected behavior for non-running VMs, or the result of the operation, so the agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (node, vmid, confirm). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Reboot' and identifies the resource 'QEMU virtual machine', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_vm, start_vm, or shutdown_vm. It also specifies the condition 'running', which adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use reboot_vm versus alternatives such as stop_vm and start_vm, shutdown_vm, or restart_container. The description lacks context like 'Use for restarting a VM without full stop/start' or prerequisites like the VM must have QEMU guest agent installed. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Update' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or whether the container must be stopped. The mutating nature is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain return values, when to use it, or the relationship to other container network tools. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'nameserver and searchdomain settings,' which roughly maps to the optional parameters, but it does not explain the required node and vmid parameters at all. The parameter semantics are largely unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and specific resource (DNS nameserver and searchdomain settings for an LXC container). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_network_container by focusing narrowly on DNS settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_network_container. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided, leaving the agent to guess when this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but no additional context is given about required permissions, side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. The description fails to disclose anything beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and efficient, but the brevity omits essential context, which is a trade-off. For the dimension of conciseness, it earns a solid score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to know what the response will look like or how to correctly invoke the tool. The description is too sparse for a tool that has two required parameters and no additional structured context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. While the names are somewhat standard in Proxmox contexts, the description offers no clarification of what these values represent, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the tool name and sibling tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch configuration settings of an LXC container' clearly states the verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_vm_config (for VMs) and get_container_status (status vs configuration). This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools. The context is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase 'LXC container.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., overwriting the drive, required VM state, irreversibility). This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though under-specified in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutating nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, required preconditions, and side effects, making it incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not mention 'node' or 'vmid' at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's type/required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Regenerate the Cloud-Init drive image for a VM.' It uses a specific verb ('regenerate') and resource ('Cloud-Init drive image'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like configure_cloudinit_vm and get_cloudinit_config_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., VM stopped), scenarios where regeneration is appropriate, or contrast with configure/get cloudinit tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'extend', implying a non-destructive capacity increase. It does not state whether the container must be stopped, if the operation is reversible, or any side effects on running containers. This leaves critical behavior undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the key action and object, though it sacrifices critical details that could be included without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and how this differs from VM disk resize, leaving too much unsaid for safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a vague hint that 'rootfs' is one possible disk target, but it does not explain the 'size' format, the meaning of 'node' and 'vmid', or that 'disk' defaults to 'rootfs'. This is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Extend') and resource ('rootfs or disk capacity of an LXC container'), making it clear what the tool does. It also implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'resize_vm_disk' by specifying LXC container, avoiding confusion with VM disk operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer a different operation such as updating container resources or adding a new disk. The context is implied only by the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Extend the capacity' only states the action, with no disclosure of side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or impact on the VM. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, literally concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a potentially risky mutation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description fails to provide prerequisites, effects, execution behavior, or return value expectations. A single sentence cannot make the tool safely usable by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero description coverage (0%) and the description doesn't explain any parameter. It implies 'size' relates to capacity but doesn't explicitly map node, vmid, disk, or size. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no syntactic or semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Extend the capacity of a virtual machine disk' uses a specific verb ('extend') and clearly identifies the resource (VM disk). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_vm_disk (adding a new disk) and move_vm_disk, as well as resize_container_disk for containers.
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?
The description implies the tool is for increasing VM disk capacity, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other operations (e.g., shrinking, container disks). No mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits: automated step tracing and failure rollback. However, it does not explain what the rollback entails, whether the operation is idempotent, or how results are reported (e.g., task ID, blocking vs async), which are relevant for a provisioning tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and key qualifiers, and every phrase ('multi-step', 'VM or LXC container', 'automated step tracing', 'failure rollback') adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should provide substantial context. It does not explain return behavior, the meaning of 'multi-step' in practical terms, or the relationship between parameters and the provisioning flow. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool beyond basic recognition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention 'node', 'name', 'resource_type', 'template_id', or any of the 13 parameters, leaving their roles entirely unexplained. The tool name and vague 'provisioning' do not compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Execute') and resource ('multi-step VM or LXC container provisioning'), specifying that it handles both VM and LXC container provisioning. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_vm or create_container, but the 'multi-step' and 'workflow' nature suggests a higher-level operation, which is reasonable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_vm or create_container, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention conditions like requiring an existing template or when a multi-step workflow is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'to disk.' It does not reveal what happens to the VM state, whether resources are released, if a resume operation is required, or any side effects such as potential data loss or network disconnection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral detail and parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough. It omits suspend behavior implications, relationship to resume, and how todisk affects operation, leaving the agent to guess important details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. While node and vmid are self-explanatory from their names and types, the todisk boolean (default true) is not described, yet it is critical to understanding the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Suspend') and resource ('virtual machine state') and adds the key qualifier 'to disk,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_vm, stop_vm, and shutdown_vm. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use suspend_vm versus alternatives such as stop_vm, shutdown_vm, or pause_vm. The description does not mention prerequisites, effects on running workloads, or how this differs from a full stop or a pause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose important behavioral details for a mutation operation. It does not state whether changes require a reboot, are hot-pluggable, or have side effects, leaving the agent unprepared for potential impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized but lacks the depth needed to compensate for missing structured metadata.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity of 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It omits essential usage context, parameter explanations, and behavioral considerations, making it inadequate for safe and correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but only hints at 'cores' and 'sockets'. It does not clarify the meaning or usage of cpu, numa, vcpus, node, or vmid, leaving most parameters undefined for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('CPU core and socket allocation of a virtual machine'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_memory_vm and resize_vm_disk. The verb and resource are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other update tools. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the VM must be stopped, or any conditions that would recommend 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action of updating resources and does not disclose effects such as whether changes require a restart, take effect immediately, require specific permissions, or whether null values mean 'leave unchanged'. This is minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the update action and resource. It is efficient, though it could be more structured to list parameters or conditions, but conciseness itself is high.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain null semantics, effects on running containers, or relationship to other resource-update tools. The description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions cores, memory, and swap but omits cpulimit and cpuweight. It does not explain the meaning of null defaults, units (e.g., MB for memory), or any constraints. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource type 'LXC container' along with the specific resources 'CPU cores, memory, or swap resources'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_cpu_vm (which targets VMs) and resize_container_disk (which targets disks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_cpu_vm, update_memory_vm, or resize_container_disk. The description only states the action without any context for selection, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly among similar resource-modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the container must be stopped), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter relationships, required context (e.g., node/vmid), or any constraints. This would likely leave an agent uncertain about correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'mp', 'volume', 'storage', or other key parameters. The phrase 'mount point or bind mount' hints at 'mp' but provides no mapping to the schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a mount point or bind mount to an LXC container'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like remove_bind_mount_container.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It states that the tool clones a VM or template but gives no details about side effects, such as whether the source VM is affected, whether a full or linked clone is created (the 'full' parameter exists but is not explained), or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose clearly, though it does so with minimal detail, which is appropriate for a high-level description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or operational behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero coverage of parameter descriptions, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of 'full', 'target', 'storage', or the relationship between 'node' and 'vmid'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clone') and names the resource ('virtual machine or template'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like migrate_vm, template_vm, and delete_vm. It unambiguously states what the tool does, though it could be slightly more explicit about producing a new VM.
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?
The description implies the tool is for cloning VMs or templates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like migrate_vm or template_vm, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the source VM existing or the target node being available. The use case is inferable from the verb, so it's not wholly absent, but there's no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on the container. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant or filler wording. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool. It omits details about required inputs, preconditions, expected outcomes, or return values, making it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain parameter meanings. While 'LXC container' hints that vmid refers to a container ID, node, snapname, and description remain ambiguous and rely on schema field names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'create' and identifies the resource as a snapshot of an LXC container, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_snapshot_vm or snapshot deletion/rollback tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as container existence or running state, nor does it contrast with other snapshot operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Pause execution') without elaborating on reversibility, state preservation, or side effects. For a non-destructive operation, this is minimal but not sufficient for an agent to infer safety or post-conditions.
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?
The description is a single, unambiguous sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately minimal for such a straightforward operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the description could still mention key contextual details like 'state is preserved and can be resumed with resume_vm' or 'the VM must be running'. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent under-informed about the operation's full behavior and lifecycle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention 'node' or 'vmid' at all. Both parameters are undocumented beyond their names and types, leaving the agent to guess their meaning (e.g., what 'node' refers to). The description provides zero additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('running QEMU virtual machine'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_vm or resume_vm. It immediately conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used on a 'running' VM, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explain when to prefer pause over stop/shutdown/suspend or mention alternatives, leaving the decision partially unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral implications. It conveys that the tool changes VM state from paused to running, but it does not explain what happens if the VM is not paused, whether the operation is asynchronous, or any error conditions. This leaves important behavior undisclosed for a mutating operation.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple state-transition operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not specify when to use it (paused VM only), what the parameters refer to, or the expected outcome/errors. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description carries the full burden, and it falls short of providing complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (node, vmid) with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention either. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. No format, constraints, or relationship between parameters is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: resuming execution of a paused QEMU virtual machine. The verb 'resume' and target 'paused QEMU virtual machine' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like start_vm or stop_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as start_vm (for stopped VMs) or pause_vm (the inverse operation). It does not state prerequisites (e.g., VM must be paused) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'convert' and fails to mention critical consequences such as the container becoming a template, becoming non-startable as a regular container, or the irreversible nature of the operation. No side effects, permissions, or state changes are disclosed.
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?
The description is a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or information. It effectively communicates the core purpose without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is under-specified for a mutation tool: there is no output schema, no annotations, no parameter explanations, and no disclosure of prerequisites or post-conditions. It does not explain what happens to the source container or whether a copy is created, leaving the agent with an incomplete mental model of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning for the 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. It doesn't state which parameter is the container ID or what 'node' refers to, leaving the agent without sufficient information to correctly populate these required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (convert) and resource (an LXC container) and the outcome (reusable template), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like template_vm (which likely converts a VM) and clone_container (which creates a copy without conversion).
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you want to create a template from an existing LXC container) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped), or exclusions. It is a bare functional statement without contextual use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the conversion action without explaining side effects (e.g., irreversibility, whether the VM becomes non-bootable, or if concurrent operations are blocked). This lacks critical context for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that directly conveys the core purpose with no wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the one-line description is inadequate. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and any detail about the expected outcome beyond the conversion itself.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the meaning or format of `node` and `vmid`. The agent must infer their roles from context, which is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'convert' and identifies the resource as 'QEMU virtual machine' with a clear outcome ('reusable template'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vm, clone_vm, and template_container.
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?
The purpose implies usage (to create a template from a VM), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as clone_vm or template_container, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions like the VM needing to be stopped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'update' but does not reveal side effects like whether a reboot is needed, whether memory values are in MB, or whether changes are immediate. It also completely omits the hugepages parameter, which is part of the schema, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It omits key parameters and behavior, making it too terse for the tool's complexity. While it is front-loaded and easy to read, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It does not cover all parameters (hugepages missing), does not explain units or side effects, and provides no context about VM state or prerequisites. The tool is a mutation with minimal guidance, which is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies memory and ballooning, but it does not explain node, vmid, or hugepages. Memory units are not specified, and hugepages is entirely absent, so an agent cannot infer the meaning of all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates 'RAM memory size and ballooning configuration' of a VM, which is a specific action on a specific resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_cpu_vm and resize_vm_disk, making the purpose easy to identify.
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?
The description implies the tool is for memory-related updates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as VM state or whether the VM must be stopped. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool names, leaving usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it describe what 'detailed' includes or any error conditions.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status query, the description is minimally adequate, but lacks details about return format, parameter semantics, and read-only behavior. Without annotations or output schema, it does not fully compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description coverage (0%), and the description does not explain the 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. While these are common Proxmox terms, the agent receives no semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'LXC container' with 'detailed runtime status', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_container_config and get_vm_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vm_status or list_containers. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' with no mention of ordering, pagination, what 'recent' means, authentication, or whether it is read-only. This is minimal behavioral context; the agent has to infer the tool's behavior from the name and schema.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource ('recent asynchronous background tasks'). It contains no filler words and all clauses add useful information about scope and filters. This is appropriate conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavioral details. It only states 'list tasks' without describing the returned structure, ordering, or what fields are included. The tool has four parameters but the description omits user semantics and any filtering behavior details, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The description adds meaning for three of four parameters: 'node' via 'globally or for a specific node', 'limit' and 'status_filter' via 'optional status and limit filters'. However, the 'user' parameter is not mentioned, leaving it unexplained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent asynchronous background tasks, with explicit scope ('globally or for a specific node') and optional filters. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_status, which focuses on individual task status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast usage.
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?
The description implies usage ('list recent tasks') and mentions scope/filters, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not compare with alternatives like task_status or mention prerequisites. The use case is clear but not directly stated as the preferred tool for a given situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose without mentioning permissions, error handling, output format, or side effects. For a list operation, it could at least note that it is read-only or returns snapshot metadata, but it doesn't.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately identifies the action and object, making it highly scannable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide richer context. It fails to explain the 'node' parameter, address edge cases like no snapshots, or indicate what the response looks like. The description is too minimal for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the unexplained parameters. It hints that vmid identifies the virtual machine, but 'node' is entirely unaddressed, leaving a required parameter ambiguous and increasing the risk of incorrect invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the object 'all snapshots for a specified virtual machine'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_snapshots_container by explicitly targeting VMs, and from snapshot creation/deletion tools by its read-only 'List' verb.
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?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving VM snapshots, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_snapshots_container, nor does it mention pr prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all...' without detailing read-only nature, permissions, output format, pagination, or error behavior. The scope ('on a specified node') is helpful, but other behavioral traits are missing.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. There is no unnecessary information or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and any preconditions. It does not explain the return format or potential errors, and there is no mention of required permissions. For a simple list tool, it is minimally acceptable but leaves important gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for the 'node' parameter (0% coverage). The description mentions 'specified node' but does not explain what a node is, the expected format, or allowed values. Since schema coverage is zero, the description should compensate more but only offers a minimal hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all'), the resource ('QEMU virtual machines'), and the scope ('on a specified node'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_containers (which lists containers) and get_vm_status (which targets a single VM).
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?
The description implies the tool is used when you need to enumerate VMs on a particular node, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison to sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention the 'delete' parameter's default behavior (source deletion), potential need to stop the VM, or other side effects of moving a disk.
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 sentence that is direct and without redundancy. It communicates the core action efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient. It omits prerequisites, the effect of the 'delete' flag, return values, and error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero descriptions for its 5 parameters. The description only hints at 'storage pool' as the destination but does not explain the 'disk' selector, 'node', or the 'delete' flag, leaving key parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Move') and identifies the resource ('virtual machine disk') and destination ('different storage pool'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like resize_vm_disk or add_vm_disk.
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?
The description implies the tool is for relocating a VM disk to another storage pool but provides no explicit context on when to prefer it over alternatives like migrate_vm or how it fits into VM management workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read-only operation, but no additional context is given about response format, error conditions, or prerequisites. The behavior is basic and evident, but not elaborated beyond the verb.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter semantics, output expectations, and any note about error handling or prerequisites. Clear gaps remain, making it only a baseline viable description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'node' or 'vmid' at all, leaving both parameters completely undocumented. It only says 'of a virtual machine', which does not clarify parameter meaning, required fields, or value formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'Cloud-Init configuration settings of a virtual machine', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_vm_config (which fetches all config) and configure_cloudinit_vm (which modifies config). The scope is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage when Cloud-Init settings are needed, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_vm_config or contrast with configure_cloudinit_vm/regenerate_cloudinit_vm. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so guidance is merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and requires confirm=True, which is critical. However, it omits specifics on the graceful shutdown process, timeout handling, or side effects, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.
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?
Two short sentences: the first states purpose clearly, the second provides essential safety info. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose and safety warning, but lacks detail on timeout_sec semantics, graceful shutdown process, and differentiation from similar tools. Without output schema or annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions confirm=True, not node, vmid, or timeout_sec. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gracefully shutdown') and the target resource ('LXC container'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying graceful shutdown of LXC containers, as opposed to VM shutdown or forced stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_container or shutdown_vm. The 'gracefully' hint implies a soft shutdown, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. As a state-changing operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the operation's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple state-change operation, the description is adequate but leaves out behavioral details such as error handling or whether the VM must be powered off. No output schema exists, so additional context could be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the node or vmid parameters. While their names are intuitive, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the target resource ('stopped QEMU virtual machine'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_vm, pause_vm, and resume_vm by specifying the 'stopped' state.
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?
The description implies it should be used for stopped VMs, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The context is clear from the verb and resource, but lacks exclusionary or comparative details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only action, but there is no explicit statement of non-destructiveness, required permissions, or output format. It does list the three data types returned, which adds some context beyond the empty schema.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, starting with the verb 'Fetch' and containing no redundant or filler words. It is optimally concise and well-structured.
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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool fetches. However, it omits any usage context or relationship to the similar get_security_summary, leaving a minor gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description correctly implies that no input is needed, aligning with the baseline for parameter-less tools.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and names three concrete resources: security audit status, CIDR rules, and sensitive key scrubbing configuration. This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar get_security_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_security_summary or check_client_ip. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is a useful safety signal. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the summary is current, or any other behavioral caveats. The simplicity of a zero-parameter getter keeps this from being lower.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Retrieve security policy configuration and status summary.' It contains no filler or redundant information.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It clearly states the scope ('security policy configuration and status summary') without needing to explain return values, since the output schema covers that. It could mention related tools, but that is already addressed under usage guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description adds no parameter details. No parameter semantics are needed, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies a concrete resource ('security policy configuration and status summary'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'audit_security_rules', which likely overlaps in the security domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'audit_security_rules' or 'check_client_ip'. The description states what the tool does but not the context in which it should be chosen over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and fails to mention side effects (none expected for a list), required permissions, error conditions, pagination, or return format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose.
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 simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essentials. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (list of containers on a node) and the required input. However, it could be more complete by noting that only containers are returned (not VMs/templates) and possibly the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'node' parameter. The description simply repeats 'specified node' without explaining what valid node identifiers are (hostname, IP, ID?) or any constraints. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all LXC containers'), and the scope ('on a specified node'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_vms (VMs) and list_nodes (nodes).
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (to list containers on a node) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to use (e.g., get_container_status for a specific container, list_vms for VMs). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and clarifies that confirm=True is required, but does not detail the actual consequences, such as losing all changes made after the snapshot, or whether the container must be stopped.
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?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a short warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately flags the destructive nature. No unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is destructive, has no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It only mentions the action and the confirm requirement, omitting details about the effect on the container's current state, any prerequisites (e.g., existing snapshot, container stopped), or what the response might look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the confirm parameter by stating it must be true, but it does not explain node, vmid, or snapname. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of explicit clarification leaves room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as rolling back an LXC container state to a snapshot, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like rollback_snapshot_vm (for VMs) and create/delete/list snapshot tools.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to revert a container to a snapshot state, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, such as rollback_snapshot_vm for VMs. It does provide a key guideline by requiring confirm=True, but omits any context about prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry safety and behavior disclosure. It reveals the workflow involves multiple actions and cleanup, signaling mutability, but doesn't disclose failure behavior, permission needs, or what happens to pre-snapshots.
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 filler, efficiently listing the main workflow phases. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for a high-level summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, side effects, return values, or error handling, making safe invocation difficult.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters. It doesn't explain node/vmid/storage requirements or flags like mode, compress, resource_type, or snapshot handling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Execute' and identifies resource as multi-step backup workflow, listing distinct steps (storage pre-checks, snapshotting, vzdump, cleanup). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like run_provisioning_workflow and individual snapshot tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description communicates clear context: it is the tool for backup workflows, implying use when a full backup is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_snapshot_vm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation with potentially broad impact, does not explain the confirm flag or stop_on_error behavior, and 'matching filters' is vague. The description omits critical safety and error-handling context.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and target scope. No filler or redundant information; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, batch mutation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on filter semantics, required confirm behavior, error handling, and what the operation returns. The description is insufficient for safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the action parameter by listing supported values (start, stop, etc.) and identifies resource types (VMs/LXC containers), but it does not explain node, tags, vmids, confirm, or stop_on_error. Most parameters remain undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Execute batch lifecycle actions' and clearly lists the actions (start, stop, shutdown, pause, resume) and target types (VMs or LXC containers). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that operate on individual VMs or containers, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for batch lifecycle operations across filters, implying it should be used when multiple resources need the same action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with individual lifecycle tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It indicates a read-only aggregation but does not explain the boolean parameters or the storage threshold, nor does it mention the return format or potential failures (e.g., if the cluster is unreachable). This leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.
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, densely informative sentence with no redundant words, front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple aggregation tool, but it omits return value structure and the meaning of the boolean toggles. Given no output schema and no annotations, the context is only partially complete; the agent may not know what a 'readiness state' looks like or how to interpret the result.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It names three components corresponding to check_quorum, check_storage, and check_node_health, but does not explain the boolean toggling semantics or the purpose of min_free_storage_bytes beyond what the parameter name implies. The description adds some value but not complete mapping.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and clearly names the resource (cluster readiness state) with concrete components (node health, quorum state, storage space, task health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cluster_health or cluster_resources which target narrower aspects.
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?
The description implies the tool is for overall readiness assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., node_status, list_storage). No alternative tools are mentioned, and no exclusion conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety. It explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'Requires confirm=True,' which is critical and goes beyond the schema by indicating that the operation is destructive and will not proceed without confirmation. It doesn't detail other side effects, but the main danger is addressed.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the main action first and the critical safety note second. Every word is purposeful, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but the description doesn't explain what mp_key is or what the return value will be (no output schema). The destructive warning provides important context, but parameter ambiguity leaves gaps for correct invocation. More detail on the parameters and usage context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only adds meaning to 'confirm' (must be true) but doesn't clarify node, vmid, or mp_key. The term 'mp_key' is not self-explanatory, and the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove a mount point from an LXC container.' The verb 'Remove' and resource 'mount point' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_bind_mount_container or delete_container. The DESTRUCTIVE note reinforces that this is a removal operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for removing a bind mount, nor does it point to add_bind_mount_container for adding one. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 only states the action and target state, omitting important details like idempotency, error behavior, permissions, or return values. For a mutating operation, this is a notable gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter operation, the description captures the core purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details about return values, failure modes, and prerequisites, which leaves the description partially incomplete for a tool that performs a state-changing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'node' or 'vmid'. Although the parameter names are relatively self-explanatory, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a stopped LXC container' clearly identifies the specific verb (start), the resource (LXC container), and the condition (stopped), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_vm or stop_container. It is both specific and concise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying the target state (stopped) and resource (LXC container). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using start_vm for VMs or warning against restarting an already running container, but the context is still unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('DESTRUCTIVE') and the confirmation requirement, but does not elaborate on consequences like potential data loss or irreversibility. The forceful stop behavior is implied but not fully contextualized.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a critical safety warning. No filler or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stop operation, the description covers the core action and safety warning, but lacks parameter details and explicit alternative guidance. Given no annotations and no output schema, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It only mentions 'confirm=True', indicating that confirm is required to be true, but does not explain 'node' or 'vmid'. This provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Forcefully stop (power off)') and the target ('QEMU virtual machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like shutdown_vm (graceful shutdown) and pause_vm. The use of 'Forcefully' and 'power off' provides specific verb+resource clarity.
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?
The description implies usage for forceful power-off scenarios, but does not explicitly state when to use this over shutdown_vm or other alternatives. The 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning and 'Requires confirm=True' provide some usage conditions, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite having no annotations, the description explicitly flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and states that confirm=True is required, which is critical safety information. However, it does not explain consequences like whether disks are permanently removed or if snapshots are affected, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the destructive warning prominently placed. Every word contributes value, and the structure is efficient and immediately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides adequate context for a destructive operation with a safety warning, but lacks details on side effects, irreversibility, and parameter semantics. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more specificity about consequences and prerequisites would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0% parameter coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'purge' by saying 'purge resources' and highlights the confirm parameter via 'Requires confirm=True.' However, node and vmid are not explained, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (QEMU virtual machine), and adds 'purge resources' to indicate scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like migrate_vm or stop_vm, which are semantically different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shutdown_vm or delete_container. The destructive warning implies caution, but there is no explicit context about suitable scenarios or prerequisites like VM shutdown state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'Fetch' operation, which is transparent about the non-destructive nature. However, it does not disclose response format, potential errors, or any special permissions required. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the tool's action and key outputs without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficient.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description lists the metrics returned (hardware, CPU/memory, kernel, status), which sufficiently hints at the output. However, it omits details about the node identifier format and any rate limits or prerequisites, leaving a small but notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a specific node', which adds minimal meaning to the 'node' parameter. It does not specify whether the value should be a node name, ID, or IP, nor any format constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description offers little extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'hardware metrics, CPU/memory usage, kernel version, and status for a specific node.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_nodes (which lists nodes) and get_vm_status/get_container_status (which target VMs/containers), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'for a specific node' implies this is for individual node status rather than cluster-wide views, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cluster_health or cluster_resources. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the shutdown is graceful and uses an ACPI signal, which is beyond a simple 'shutdown'. However, it does not mention timeouts, failure handling, or whether the VM may become unresponsive, leaving gaps in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action, resource, and method. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.
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 simple shutdown tool with only two obvious parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks details about edge cases like already-shutdown VMs or error handling, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the clarity of the action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the node or vmid parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, no explicit semantics are added, so the agent must infer their meaning from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'shutdown', the resource 'QEMU virtual machine', and the method 'via ACPI signal'. The word 'gracefully' distinguishes this from sibling tools like stop_vm, which likely implies a force stop.
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?
The description implies usage when a graceful shutdown is desired, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. No exclusionary language is present, and the contrast with stop_vm is only implicit via 'gracefully'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and requires 'confirm=True', which is a critical safety disclosure. However, it does not detail effects on snapshots or running state, leaving some gaps, but the key destructive trait is clearly flagged.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and follows with a critical safety warning. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive 4-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the core action and confirm guard but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped), reversibility, and what happens to associated resources. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the confirm parameter and vaguely hints at 'purge resources' which relates to destroy_unreferenced_disks. Node and vmid are not explained, though they may be self-evident. This is insufficient for a 4-param tool with no schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'LXC container' and adds 'purge resources', clearly indicating permanent removal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_vm (for VMs) and stop/shutdown (which don't delete).
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?
The description implies usage (deleting a container) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, such as stop_container for non-destructive actions or delete_vm for VMs. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it relies on the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature and the confirm requirement, adding important behavioral context. However, it lacks details on irreversibility, permissions, or failure conditions.
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?
The description is two brief sentences: the first states the action clearly, the second delivers the critical safety warning. There is no unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward, but the description is minimal given the absence of annotations and low schema coverage. It provides the essentials for basic invocation but omits error scenarios, prerequisites, and consequence details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only adds meaning for the confirm parameter (must be true), while node, vmid, and snapname are left to their self-evident schema names without additional explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource, 'an LXC container snapshot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_snapshot_container, rollback_snapshot_container, and list_snapshots_container.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage for deleting a snapshot and states the required confirm=True for destructive operations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, which would be needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of warning about destructive behavior. It explicitly labels the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states the confirm=True requirement, adding critical safety context beyond what the schema shows (default false). However, it does not elaborate on irreversibility or other side effects.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the primary purpose and includes a crucial warning. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool, the description conveys the essential destructive nature and confirmation requirement, but it lacks any information about return values, expected response, or post-conditions. With no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description would help, but the core usage is adequately captured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the confirm parameter. The required parameters (node, vmid, snapname) are not explained, though their names are self-explanatory. This leaves the agent to infer their meaning and format without any descriptive support.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('virtual machine snapshot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_vm (whole VM) and delete_snapshot_container (container snapshot). It is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., rollback_snapshot_vm) or provide exclusions. The confirm=True requirement is the only contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the output includes status and resource utilization, but does not mention any additional behaviors like ordering, pagination, or access requirements. It is a read-only listing, so the description is minimally adequate but not rich.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and scope. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. It explains that it returns all nodes with status and utilization, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. However, it could be improved by explicitly noting the return type as a list/array, though that is implied by 'List'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The empty schema makes the description trivially adequate; no parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'all nodes in the Proxmox cluster', making the operation unambiguous. It further specifies what information is returned (status and resource utilization), distinguishing it from sibling tools like node_status or list_vms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as node_status, cluster_resources, or cluster_health. There is no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose additional relevant behaviors such as authentication requirements, behavior when no snapshots exist, or whether the response is paginated. It meets the minimum but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently scopes the operation and indicates the returned entities (snapshots). It lacks details on response format or any special considerations, but for a listing operation this is well-covered.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'node' or 'vmid' parameters. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory in the Proxmox context (node is a cluster node, vmid is the container ID) and the description clarifies that the target is an LXC container. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for non-experts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all snapshots') and the resource ('LXC container'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_snapshots_vm' for VMs. The verb is precise and the scope is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage by naming the resource type, and the sibling tools include snapshot operations for containers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states a read-only fetch operation, which is inherently non-destructive, but it doesn't explicitly disclose that it is read-only or what happens if the UPID does not exist. It also doesn't mention whether it returns progress information or just a final status.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and contains no extraneous content. Every word contributes to the core meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 string parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description gives the essential function but lacks details about the 'node' parameter and prerequisites (e.g., the task must have been started on that node). It also doesn't hint at return values, though that is partially covered by the phrase 'status and exit status'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only explicitly mentions 'UPID' and entirely omits 'node', leaving the node parameter undefined. While 'node' likely refers to the Proxmox node, the description does not clarify its role, leaving a gap for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and defines the exact resource ('status and exit status of an asynchronous Proxmox background task') and the access method ('by UPID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recent_tasks, which lists tasks, and get_vm_status, which returns VM state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the clear context: use this tool when you have a UPID from an asynchronous Proxmox task and need to check its status. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and fits within the broader workflow of managing async operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description relies on the verb 'Fetch' to indicate a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral signal. However, it does not disclose potential costs like aggregation overhead, nor does it state what the 'health summary' contains beyond the listed metrics.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that names the operation and its return items without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately lists the key return data (health summary, node counts, VM counts, CPU/memory). It is concise and covers the main purpose, though it does not elaborate on the format or interpretation of the health summary. For a simple 0-parameter tool, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter details, but per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'aggregated health summary' of the Proxmox cluster, listing specific outputs (node counts, VM counts, CPU/memory utilization). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_nodes or node_status, which focus on individual nodes.
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?
The description implies use for overall cluster health awareness but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like cluster_resources or node_status. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of safety disclosure. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and requires confirm=True, which is important behavior beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the specific consequences of the destructive action (e.g., service interruption, potential data loss), so it's not a 5.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the action and the key warning. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a relatively simple action, and the description gives the core purpose and a safety warning. However, it lacks details on return values, prerequisites (e.g., container must exist), and a fuller explanation of what 'destructive' entails. For a mutating tool with no annotations or output schema, it should provide more context to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'confirm=True', adding some meaning for that parameter, but node and vmid are left undefined in both the schema and description. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reboot/restart') and the resource ('an LXC container'), making it distinct from sibling tools like reboot_vm, stop_container, and start_container. It uses a specific verb and resource, so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it's for restarting LXC containers and includes a critical usage caveat ('DESTRUCTIVE: Requires confirm=True'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'for VMs use reboot_vm'), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'Requires confirm=True', disclosing the most critical behavioral traits: the operation is destructive and requires explicit confirmation. It does not detail prerequisites like the VM needing to be stopped, but the core destructive nature is clearly communicated.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and the destructive warning is prominently placed. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 straightforward rollback operation with 4 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, the destructive nature, and the confirmation requirement. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the snapshot exists), but the core usage is clear enough for an agent to execute correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining it is required for execution. However, it does not explain node, vmid, or snapname beyond what the schema names imply. The compensating information is partial, leaving the rest to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rollback') and the resource ('virtual machine state to a snapshot'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rollback_snapshot_container by specifying 'virtual machine', and the verb uniquely identifies the operation among VM tools.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to revert a VM to a snapshot. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for containers use rollback_snapshot_container). The 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning is a caution rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states that confirmation is required, which are critical behavioral traits for a forceful stop. This goes beyond the schema to warn the user about the irreversible impact. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., data loss potential) or reversibility (e.g., that the container can be started again).
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?
The description is two short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. The destructive warning and confirm requirement are succinctly encapsulated. There is no padding or redundancy; every word adds value.
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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, destructive nature, and the critical confirmation parameter. It lacks details like behavior when confirm is false or for already-stopped containers, but these are peripheral for selection and basic invocation. The description sufficiently differentiates from sibling tools to guide correct usage.
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?
The description adds meaning only for the 'confirm' parameter by noting it must be true, which is essential for invocation. 'node' and 'vmid' are self-explanatory from their names and context, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description could have explicitly clarified these fields. Still, it provides some parameter guidance, raising it above a bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Forcefully stop an LXC container.' The verb 'stop' with the qualifier 'forcefully' specifies both the action and the manner, distinguishing it from graceful shutdown tools like shutdown_container. It also explicitly targets LXC containers, separating it from stop_vm and other VM tools.
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?
The description implies usage through the word 'Forcefully' and the 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, suggesting it is for situations where a normal shutdown is insufficient. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (such as shutdown_container) or provide clear 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance. The note 'Requires confirm=True' gives a prerequisite but not a decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and the optional content_type filter, but does not detail return format, pagination, error behavior, or permissions. For a simple listing operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every phrase earns its place: the verb, resource scope, examples, and filter option are all included without unnecessary detail.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward list operation: what is listed, where, and how to filter. Return format is not described, but for a list of items it is reasonably inferable. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though slightly more detail (e.g., return structure) would make it stronger.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the 0% schema coverage indicator, the description effectively explains parameter meaning: 'storage pool' maps to the storage parameter, 'on a node' implies the node parameter, and 'optional content_type filter' explicitly defines the filter's role. This adds value beyond the bare schema variable names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('volume items') with scope ('inside a storage pool on a node'), and enumerates concrete content types (VM disks, ISOs, LXC templates, backups). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_storage or storage_status by focusing on content-level enumeration rather than status or pool-level listing.
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?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to enumerate volume items in a storage pool. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but not fully prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only verification behavior through the verb 'Verify' and specifies the whitelist context, but it does not disclose response format, error handling, or whether blacklist is also considered. For a simple check, this level is acceptable but minimal.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loads the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and the presence of an output schema to document return values, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides all necessary context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, but the description explicitly identifies ip_address as 'a given client IP address', which adds semantic meaning beyond a bare string type. It clearly maps the parameter's purpose, though it lacks format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Verify' and clearly states the resource (client IP address) and the criterion (allowed by security policy whitelist). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling security tools like audit_security_rules and get_security_summary by focusing on a single IP check.
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?
The description implies usage when needing to verify a client IP against the whitelist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool comparisons are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope and output fields, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any permissions or side effects. The verb 'list' implies non-mutating behavior, but it is not made explicit.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the action, object, optional filter, and output attributes efficiently.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, filtering scope, and output contents. It does not discuss return format or pagination, but these are not necessary given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'node' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), but the description explains its meaning: 'globally or for a specific node' implies the node parameter is an optional filter, and omitting it lists globally. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('storage pools'), and clarifies the scope ('globally or for a specific node') plus the included fields ('type, status, and calculated space usage'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like storage_content or storage_status.
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?
The description gives context on when to use it (listing pools globally or per node) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like storage_content and storage_status exist, but the description does not contrast with them, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, output format, or any access requirements. It provides basic behavioral context but could be more explicit.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and scope, then clarifies the parameter. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential scope and filtering options. It is sufficient for a basic list tool, though it could mention return composition or any special handling of null filter, but that is not critical here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema property 'type_filter' has no description and no enum, but the description compensates by listing valid filter values (node, qemu, lxc, storage) and stating that the filter is optional. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the structural schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'resource list' and clearly scopes it to 'across the Proxmox cluster'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_vms or list_storage by emphasizing the cluster-wide aggregation and optional type filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies use for cluster-wide resource enumeration with optional filtering, providing context for when to use this tool versus more specific list tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey the tool's behavior. The verb 'fetch' indicates a read-only operation, and the description lists the returned data (capacity, total/used bytes, detailed status), which clarifies what the tool does. It doesn't discuss error handling or permissions, but for a simple status read this is adequate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It states verb, resource, scope, and data fields efficiently.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the resource, the node scope, and the key data fields returned. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it without needing additional explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions, so the description compensates by mapping 'node' and 'storage' to 'on a node' and 'storage pool'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare parameter names, clarifying the roles of both required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches capacity, total/used bytes, and detailed status for a specific storage pool on a node. It uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (storage pool on a node), and is distinct from sibling tools like storage_content or list_storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys when to use the tool by specifying what data it retrieves, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Context signals and sibling list imply it is for per-pool status queries, so it has clear context though not explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Proxmox_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MTDEV2312/Proxmox_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MTDEV2312/Proxmox_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Proxmox_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MTDEV2312/Proxmox_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MTDEV2312/Proxmox_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MTDEV2312/Proxmox_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server