Lists available VM templates for cloning in Proxmox VE, optionally filtered by node, so you can choose a source template before creating a clone.
List templates available for cloning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no mention of what 'templates' excludes (e.g., non-template VMs), no scope semantics for the node filter, no pagination or result-size behavior. For a listing operation the description carries almost no behavioral context of its own.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the source of the missing semantics rather than deliberate compression.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only nature, so return shape and safety need not be restated. However, the undocumented node parameter and the absence of any scope or filtering semantics leave an agent guessing about how to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single optional 'node' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains whether passing node scopes the listing to one node or whether omitting it aggregates cluster-wide — a meaningful semantic gap the description should have filled.
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 states a specific verb and resource (list templates) and adds the 'for cloning' qualifier, which hints at its relationship to pve_clone_vm and distinguishes it from pve_list_vms. It does not explicitly name a sibling, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Available for cloning" implies the use case (find a clone source before calling pve_clone_vm), but the description never states when to prefer this over pve_list_vms or whether a node must be specified. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.