Lists Proxmox nodes with their current status, giving you a quick overview of your homelab's virtualization hosts.
Lista nodos Proxmox y su estado.
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_nodes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes a non-mutating list operation and indicates that status is included, but it does not detail status format, potential errors, or other runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence in Spanish with no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument read-only listing tool, this description is nearly sufficient: an agent knows what the tool acts on and generally what to expect. It leaves the exact status fields and output shape unspecified, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the schema fully covers parameter usage (100% coverage). With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and no additional explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('nodos Proxmox'), and adds the output dimension ('su estado'). It clearly distinguishes this node-level tool from guest-focused siblings like pve_guests and pve_guest_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied: call this when you need Proxmox nodes and their status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.