Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• proxmox-apiA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description reveals that the tool can execute any Proxmox operation and that the method is auto-detected, which is useful behavioral context. The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the non-read-only nature is covered. Missing are cautions about destructive or irreversible API operations, permissions, or response/error behavior.

  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?

  The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The guidance to use proxmox-api-schema is useful, though it slightly repeats the path parameter description in the schema. Overall, every sentence earns a place.

  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?

  The tool is a broad generic API executer, and the description covers the essential invocation pattern: specify an OpenAPI path, supply pathParams, and pass query/body params. However, with no output schema and very broad behavior, it would benefit from stating that responses are raw Proxmox API responses and from warning about the potential impact of write/destructive operations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents path, method, params, and pathParams. The description adds a helpful example path and clarifies that params can be query params or JSON bodies, but it mostly restates what the input schema already conveys.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute any Proxmox VE API operation.' It clearly conveys that this is a generic raw API passthrough and distinguishes it from the specialized command siblings by framing it as the tool for any OpenAPI-defined operation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives useful guidance to use proxmox-api-schema for path and parameter discovery, and mentions HTTP method auto-detection. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer the specialized sibling tools (proxmox-execute-vm-command, proxmox-execute-container-command) or warn against using this generic tool for operations those tools are designed to handle.

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

• proxmox-execute-container-commandA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the underlying SSH mechanism, the exact pct exec invocation, the prerequisite that the container must be running, and the required environment variables. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint false) without contradicting them.

  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?

  Three focused sentences with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and configuration. Minor redundancy exists between the first sentence (via SSH + pct exec) and the second sentence (Uses SSH key... and runs pct exec), but each sentence still contributes useful operational detail.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 3-parameter command-execution tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers how to invoke it and what is required. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but the prerequisites, authentication, and execution method are sufficiently explained.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already defines node, vmid, and command. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states a specific verb ('execute'), resource ('shell command inside a running LXC container'), and mechanism ('SSH + pct exec'). It explicitly targets containers, which distinguishes it from the sibling proxmox-execute-vm-command without requiring schema inspection.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It gives clear context: the container must be running, and SSH must be configured via environment variables. However, it does not explicitly call out the sibling proxmox-execute-vm-command for VM use cases, leaving the VM/container split implicit rather than stating when-not-to-use.

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

• proxmox-execute-vm-commandA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the burden of operational detail. It adds meaningful constraints: command parsing into argv arrays, guest agent prerequisite, and no shell features. It does not disclose return/output or exit-code behavior, but the operational boundaries it provides are valuable.

  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?

  Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the key prerequisite, then the command-format limitation. Every sentence earns its place and the most important selection information is front-loaded.

  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?

  Covers prerequisites, command parsing, and unsupported shell features well, but this is a mutating execution tool with no output schema, so the description should say what the caller gets back (stdout, exit code, timeout result). That omission prevents an agent from fully anticipating the outcome of the call.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the command, timeout, vmid, and node parameters already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the command semantics with examples, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  States a specific verb and resource: executing a command inside a running VM via the QEMU guest agent. The VM vs. container framing distinguishes it from the sibling proxmox-execute-container-command without needing to open the schema.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Clear context is provided: the VM must have the QEMU guest agent installed and running, and shell features like pipes/redirects are unsupported. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for containers or state when this tool should not be used.

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

• proxmox-api-schemaA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar for added behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds context by explaining the three levels of output detail and that it reads from the OpenAPI spec, which goes beyond the annotations.

  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?

  The description is two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage modes are summarized in a compact, scannable second sentence.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a read-only discovery tool with three all-optional parameters, the description covers the important call variants without needing to describe an output schema. It lacks explicit mention of sibling alternatives, but this is not essential for using the tool correctly.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents tag, path, and method. The description adds meaningful semantics by mapping argument combinations to output granularity: no args → tag summary, tag → operations, path → full details, which is not fully captured in the schema.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description states a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('Proxmox VE API operations and their parameters from the OpenAPI spec'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from execution-focused siblings by framing itself as a discovery/schema-exploration tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit invocation guidance: no args for a tag summary, tag for operation lists, and path for full parameter details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage modes are clear enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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