pve-mcp

pve_task

Monitor Proxmox VE task status and tail logs by UPID, optionally blocking until completion with a timeout.

Instructions

Status and log tail of a task by UPID. wait=true blocks until it finishes (up to timeout).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "upid": "<upid>"
    },
    "name": "pve_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`upid`	Yes
`wait`	No
`timeout`	No
`log_lines`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that wait=true blocks until completion bounded by a timeout, which is genuinely useful and not in the schema, but it omits what happens on timeout expiry (error vs. running status), whether the call is read-only, and how the log tail is bounded.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the one non-obvious behavioral flag. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the parameter gaps noted above.

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

Completeness2/5

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 not be described, but for a four-parameter task-polling tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition is too thin: log_lines is undocumented and the timeout outcome is undefined. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict behavior on the blocking path.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to define all four parameters. It only explains wait and its interaction with timeout; upid is merely named, and log_lines (the log tail length) is never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess its meaning and units.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns status and a log tail for a task identified by UPID. An agent can tell it apart from the sibling list-style pve_tasks, though the description never names that alternative explicitly.

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 wait=true sentence hints at a polling-vs-blocking choice, but there is no statement of when to use this versus pve_tasks or what to do if the task is already finished. The agent must infer the decision rule from the parameter description.

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