pve-mcp

pve_tasks

List recent Proxmox VE tasks for a node or across the cluster, with filters for VM ID, running status, errors, and result limit.

Instructions

Recent tasks on one node, or across the cluster when node is omitted.

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_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`vmid`	No
`limit`	No
`running`	No
`errors_only`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the node-omission scoping behavior. It says nothing about read-only safety, whether results are limited/sorted or what 'recent' means in time terms, and it does not mention the default limit of 20 that silently truncates results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scoping contrast between node and cluster is stated first and needs no elaboration beyond what is written.

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 explained, but for a five-parameter filter tool with no annotations the definition is too thin. Four of the five parameters and the safety/read-only profile are left entirely undocumented.

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% across five parameters, and the description only clarifies the semantics of node (omitted = cluster-wide). It adds no meaning for vmid, limit, running, or errors_only, so the agent must guess at filtering and pagination behavior.

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?

Names the resource (tasks) and its scope precisely: recent tasks on one node, or cluster-wide when node is omitted. The retrieval verb is only implied by 'Recent tasks', but an agent can immediately tell this is a task-listing tool and distinguish it from the singular pve_task.

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?

Gives one useful routing rule — omit node to query across the cluster — which is effectively a when-to-use condition. It offers no guidance on when to prefer the singular pve_task sibling, nor on when the running/errors_only filters should be applied.

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