Homelab MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions, such as docker_container_logs vs. docker_container_stats, home_assistant_get_entity vs. home_assistant_list_entities, and proxmox_list_vms vs. proxmox_vm_status. There is no ambiguity or overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear prefixes for each domain (e.g., docker_, home_assistant_, proxmox_, system_, truenas_). The naming is uniform across the set, using snake_case throughout without any deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for monitoring a homelab environment, covering key areas like Docker, Home Assistant, Proxmox, TrueNAS, OPNsense, and system info. Each tool serves a distinct monitoring purpose, and the count is appropriate without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive read-only monitoring coverage for homelab components, including status, lists, and detailed views. Minor gaps exist, such as no control actions (e.g., starting/stopping containers or VMs) or deeper diagnostic tools, but agents can effectively monitor the environment with the available tools.
Average 3.1/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get recent logs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this affects container performance, rate limits, or what format/log level the logs return. For a tool that interacts with running containers, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the logs contain, their format, whether they include timestamps, or how 'recent' is defined. Given the complexity of container logging and lack of structured metadata, more context would help agents use this tool effectively.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'recent logs from a container', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'docker_container_stats' which might also provide container information, though those appear focused on different aspects (stats vs logs).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like 'docker_list_containers' and 'docker_container_stats' exist, there's no mention of when to choose logs over stats or how this relates to other container monitoring tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., real-time vs. snapshot). This is a significant gap for a stats tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (stats retrieval with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. This falls short of what's needed for adequate contextual understanding.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'container' well-documented in the schema as 'Container name or ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU/memory/network stats for a container'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_container_logs' or 'proxmox_vm_status', which might also provide performance metrics in different contexts, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'docker_list_containers' for general info or 'system_info' for broader stats, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields), whether it requires Docker daemon access, or any rate limits or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of container objects with IDs, names, statuses), which is critical for a list operation. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'all' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Docker containers') with scope ('all'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'docker_container_stats' or 'docker_container_logs' that also operate on containers, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'docker_container_stats' for monitoring or 'docker_container_logs' for debugging, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed status' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., CPU/memory usage, state, uptime), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed status'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource type and scope.
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?
Given the complexity (a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed status' entails in the return values, potential error conditions, or how it differs from other status tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (node, vmid, type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or format details. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed status of a specific Proxmox VM or container'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'proxmox_list_vms' by focusing on a single VM/container rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other status tools like 'proxmox_status' or 'system_info', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing node/vmid/type parameters, or compare to siblings like 'proxmox_list_vms' for broader queries or 'proxmox_status' for overall system status. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states this is a 'get' operation but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description is functionally correct but lacks operational transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about when to use it, what the output contains, and behavioral characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively.
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?
The description doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'a specific Home Assistant entity' which aligns with the entity_id parameter, but provides no additional syntax examples, format requirements, or semantic context beyond the schema's description.
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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed state and attributes') and resource ('of a specific Home Assistant entity'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'home_assistant_list_entities' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'home_assistant_list_entities' or other monitoring tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an entity ID first) or contextual constraints for selecting this specific retrieval method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is retrieved but does not describe how the tool behaves—e.g., whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns data in a specific format, or if it's a read-only operation. This lack of detail makes it difficult for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic output.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Get') and lists the specific data points retrieved, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple status retrieval with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies what data is fetched but does not cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or output format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in a real-world context.
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 has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details, meeting the baseline for tools with no parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('Home Assistant version, entity count, and available domains'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'home_assistant_get_entity' and 'home_assistant_list_entities' by focusing on system status rather than individual entities or entity listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other status tools like 'opnsense_status' or 'proxmox_status', which slightly limits differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'system_info' or other status-checking tools in the list. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection in relevant scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, or what format the output is in. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get host system information') and adds specifics ('disk, memory, CPU usage') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, behavioral context (e.g., permissions, data freshness), and doesn't help differentiate from sibling tools. For a system info tool, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as per rules for zero parameters.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('host system information') with specific components listed (disk, memory, CPU usage). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_container_stats' or 'proxmox_status', which also provide system-related information but for different scopes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools that might offer similar or overlapping functionality, such as 'docker_container_stats' for container-level metrics or 'proxmox_status' for hypervisor status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' status, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify details like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the status includes (e.g., uptime, load, errors). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get OPNsense firewall/gateway status'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration context. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'status' entails would improve completeness.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable as there are no parameters to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get OPNsense firewall/gateway status', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'OPNsense firewall/gateway status'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'proxmox_status' or 'truenas_status' by focusing on OPNsense, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate usage from similar status-checking tools.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other status tools like 'system_info' or 'home_assistant_status'. It lacks explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, pagination (if applicable for large result sets), or the format/structure of the returned list. For a tool that likely interacts with a production system, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('List all Proxmox VMs and containers') and adds necessary scope clarification ('across all nodes'). Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, for a tool that likely returns structured data about system resources, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at the return format or data structure, which it doesn't. It's adequate but leaves gaps about what the agent can expect from the response.
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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It correctly focuses on the tool's function without unnecessary parameter explanations, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all Proxmox VMs and containers across all nodes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'proxmox_status' and 'proxmox_vm_status' by focusing specifically on enumeration rather than status checking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential non-sibling alternatives like filtered listing tools.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for comprehensive listing, there's no mention of when to choose this over more specific tools like 'proxmox_vm_status' for individual VM details or filtered approaches. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific 'status and node information' includes (e.g., health metrics, uptime). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It directly answers 'what does this tool do?' without fluff or redundancy, making it optimally concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete—it states what the tool does. However, it lacks details on return values (since no output schema exists) and behavioral context, which are needed for full agent understanding. It's adequate but leaves gaps in a low-complexity scenario.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary param details.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Proxmox cluster status and node information', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'proxmox_list_vms' and 'proxmox_vm_status' by focusing on cluster-wide status rather than VMs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate scope (e.g., 'cluster-wide' vs 'node-specific'), which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'proxmox_list_vms' for VM details or 'system_info' for general system status, nor does it specify prerequisites like cluster connectivity. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this retrieves current alerts only, historical alerts, or both. It also doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the alerts come in (e.g., severity levels, timestamps).
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?
The description is perfectly concise at just 4 words: 'Get active TrueNAS alerts'. Every word earns its place - verb, scope ('active'), system ('TrueNAS'), and resource ('alerts'). There's zero waste or redundancy.
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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify what 'active' means (e.g., unacknowledged, current, within last 24 hours) and what information the alerts contain. The absence of output schema means the description should compensate by hinting at return format.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'active TrueNAS alerts', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'truenas_status' - both could involve retrieving TrueNAS information, though one is specifically about alerts while the other about general status.
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?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'truenas_status' that also retrieve TrueNAS information, there's no indication whether this tool should be used for real-time alert monitoring while 'truenas_status' provides general system health, or if they serve different purposes entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational characteristics.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a status-checking tool with no structured metadata, more guidance on what 'health and system status' entails would improve completeness.
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 has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline score of 4 is applied as it meets the expectation for a parameterless tool without unnecessary elaboration.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('TrueNAS pool health and system status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'truenas_alerts', which might provide overlapping or related information about TrueNAS system status.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when it's appropriate to use 'truenas_status' over 'truenas_alerts' or other system monitoring tools like 'system_info', 'proxmox_status', or 'opnsense_status', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('List all Home Assistant entities') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or operational constraints. Without annotations, it should provide more context for a complete understanding.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'domain' documented as filtering by domain. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the filter behavior in more detail. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all Home Assistant entities') with examples of entity types ('lights, switches, sensors, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'home_assistant_get_entity' by indicating it lists all entities rather than retrieving a specific one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'docker_list_containers' beyond the resource scope.
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 description implies usage for listing entities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'home_assistant_get_entity' for single entities or other sibling tools for different resources. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![homelab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bshandley/homelab-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bshandley/homelab-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![homelab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bshandley/homelab-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bshandley/homelab-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bshandley/homelab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server