Waits for a Proxmox VE task to finish and returns its exit status, letting you confirm whether an asynchronous operation such as a clone, snapshot, or power action completed successfully.
Wait for a task to finish and return its exit status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| upid | Yes | ||
| timeout | 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 usefully discloses that the call blocks until completion and yields an exit status, but says nothing about the timeout behavior (default 120), what happens on timeout, or whether failures are surfaced as errors.
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 zero filler; the blocking behavior and the returned value are stated up front.
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 explained, and the blocking semantics are stated. However, the meaning of timeout, what node does, and what happens when the wait exceeds the timeout are all missing for a call an agent may block on.
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 description mentions no parameter at all. The required 'upid' identifier, the optional 'node' scoping, and the 'timeout' default of 120 seconds are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Wait for a task') plus the outcome ('return its exit status'), which clearly separates it from pve_task_status (a non-blocking poll) and pve_list_tasks without naming them. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, 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?
There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus pve_task_status, nor any guidance about when not to block (e.g. interactive polling, long-running tasks). The only usage cue is implicit in the word 'wait'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.