pve-mcp

pve_storage

Lists Proxmox VE storage usage per node or cluster-wide, and shows a storage's contents filtered by type such as images, backups, ISOs, templates, or snippets.

Instructions

Without storage: storage list with usage (per node, or cluster-wide). With storage: its contents, optionally filtered by content type (images, rootdir, iso, vztmpl, backup, snippets, import).

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_storage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`content`	No
`storage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the mode-dependent read behavior and content-type filtering, but omits read-only status, permission requirements, pagination, and 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?

Two sentences with a clean conditional structure and no wasted wording. The mode distinction is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main operational modes and filter values. It is still missing return-value shape, pagination, and error/auth context that would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains that presence of 'storage' switches from storage listing to contents listing, that 'node' controls per-node versus cluster-wide scope, and lists valid content types. It does not explicitly map the 'node' or 'content' parameters or clarify null/default semantics.

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 states two modes of operation: listing storage with usage, or listing a storage's contents. The resource is clear, but there is no explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as pve_resources or pve_guest_config.

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 conditional phrasing 'Without storage... With storage...' gives clear implied usage for the two modes, tied directly to the storage parameter. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like pve_resources or pve_guest_config.

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