Unofficial-Proxmox-MCP

pve_list_backups

List available backup archives stored in a Proxmox VE storage pool, optionally filtered by node, to inspect backups before restore or management.

Instructions

List available backup archives stored in a designated storage pool.

Args: storage: Storage pool identifier (e.g. 'local', 'vault-backups'). node: Optional node name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pve_list_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`storage`	No		local

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions/authentication, whether results are scoped to a single node vs cluster-wide, or pagination/result-size behavior. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but that is an inference, not a disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; no filler or redundancy. The structure is clear and appropriately sized for a two-parameter list 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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and both parameters are covered. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage, the absence of any behavioral detail (auth needs, scope of the listing, node/storage interaction) leaves gaps an agent would have to discover by trial.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it does compensate: 'storage' is explained as a pool identifier with concrete examples ('local', 'vault-backups'), and 'node' is labelled optional. It stops short of 5 because it does not explain how 'node' interacts with 'storage' (e.g. whether it narrows results to backups visible from that node).

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List available backup archives stored in a designated storage pool,' which is distinct from siblings like pve_list_snapshots and pve_list_storage_pools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, 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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to pick this over pve_list_snapshots or pve_trigger_backup, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List' and the resource 'backup archives'.

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