proxmox-api

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.