Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox VE MCP server

Proxmox VE MCP server

by askmojood
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Overview

overview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarizes Proxmox VE cluster health by reporting node CPU, memory, uptime, storage use, guest run/stopped counts, and backup jobs.

Instructions

Nodes (CPU, memory, uptime), storage use, how many guests run or are stopped, and the backup jobs.

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": "overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vmsYes
nodesYes
runningYes
stoppedYes
storageYes
containersYes
backup_jobsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of what is aggregated (nodes, storage, running vs. stopped guest counts, backup jobs), which is useful context, but says nothing about freshness, cost, or whether values are live vs. cached.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with no filler. It is short enough to read at a glance and puts the domains of data up front.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, yet most of the sentence does exactly that. What is missing is the part only prose can supply: that this is the top-level summary entry point into the sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase enumerating data categories (nodes, storage, guest counts, backup jobs) rather than stating a verb, so the agent must infer that this is an aggregate read of cluster status. It does implicitly separate it from focused siblings like guest_details, but only by coverage breadth, not by an explicit statement.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus needs_attention, find_guests, or guest_details. The agent gets no signal that this is the at-a-glance summary to call first before drilling into a specific area.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools