pve_list_groups
Retrieve all group configurations from Proxmox VE to manage user permissions and access control across virtual machines and containers.
Instructions
List all groups
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Retrieve all group configurations from Proxmox VE to manage user permissions and access control across virtual machines and containers.
List all groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or output format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks context about what 'groups' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral details. With no annotations and false output schema, more completeness is needed for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all groups' clearly states the action (list) and resource (groups), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'groups' refers to in the PVE context (e.g., user groups, security groups, HA groups) and doesn't distinguish from sibling list tools like pve_list_ha_groups or pve_list_security_groups, making it vague in differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating groups), or compare to other list tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Ruashots/proxmox-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server