pve-mcp

pve_resources

Lists all cluster guests, storage, nodes, and SDN zones with current usage figures, optionally filtered by resource type.

Instructions

Every guest, storage, node or SDN zone in the cluster, with usage figures (cluster/resources).

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_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing by describing returned entities and usage figures, but never explicitly states that this is a non-mutating read, nor does it cover permissions or result size/behavior on large clusters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource enumeration and the output note both earn their place. It is slightly dense and could be split to make the optional-filter behavior explicit, but nothing is wasted.

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 return values need no explanation, and the tool has only one optional parameter. However, for a cluster-wide inventory call the description omits the guidance that would help an agent choose it over pve_cluster_status or the per-object siblings, leaving a real gap.

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 coverage is 0% for the single optional 'type' parameter, but the description enumerates exactly the four categories (guest, storage, node, SDN zone) that align with the schema enum, so an agent can infer what the filter selects. It still does not explain the default behavior when 'type' is omitted.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific resource set ('every guest, storage, node or SDN zone in the cluster') and adds the payload characteristic ('usage figures'), plus the underlying endpoint (cluster/resources). This is clearly distinguishable from narrower siblings like pve_storage or pve_cluster_status, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'Every' signals a broad, catch-all inventory call, which suggests it is the right tool for a full cluster sweep. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of when a narrower sibling such as pve_cluster_status or pve_guest would be preferable.

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