Check Proxmox VE task status and exit state, plus an optional log tail, to diagnose whether a task completed or failed.
Show a task's status (running/stopped, exit status) and optionally its log tail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| upid | Yes | ||
| log_limit | No | ||
| include_log | 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 safety is covered. The description adds useful content about what is returned (running/stopped, exit status, optional log tail) but says nothing about whether the task must exist, how long logs are retained, or what happens for an unknown upid.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core purpose comes first and the optional log behavior follows. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, which is not a conciseness penalty.
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, so return values need not be spelled out, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, an agent still lacks enough to call this confidently.
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%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not: it hints at the log options ('optionally its log tail') but never explains the upid format, the node parameter, or what log_limit controls. Half the parameters remain opaque.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Show a task's status') plus the returned fields (running/stopped, exit status, log tail). It is clearly distinct from list-oriented siblings like pve_list_tasks, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus pve_list_tasks (discovery) or pve_wait_task (blocking until completion). The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.