pve-mcp

pve_cluster_status

Retrieves Proxmox VE cluster health details—name, quorum, online nodes and IPs, version, and write status—so you can verify cluster readiness before changes.

Instructions

Cluster name, quorum, nodes (online, IP), PVE version, and whether writes are enabled here.

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": "pve_cluster_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral signal: 'whether writes are enabled here' tells the caller about the cluster's write-mode/quorum state, which matters for deciding whether mutations will succeed. However, it never states that the call is read-only with no side effects, nor what 'here' refers to (the connected node/endpoint) or any auth requirements.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('whether writes are enabled here') is placed at the end after the inventory of fields. It is compact and readable, though the field-list phrasing is less scannable than a lead clause naming the action.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool that has an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: the output schema documents return shape, so enumerating fields is somewhat redundant but harmless. What is missing is the relationship to sibling inventory tools and the meaning of 'here', which matter when choosing this over pve_resources.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 field list ('Cluster name, quorum, nodes (online, IP), PVE version...') rather than a statement of what the tool does. Combined with the tool name it is inferable that this reports cluster status, but there is no verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings such as pve_resources or pve_guest that also report infrastructure state.

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 when-to-use guidance is given at all: nothing says whether this should be called before write operations (to check quorum), for health monitoring, or how it relates to pve_resources. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the trigger conditions.

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