Skip to main content
Glama
edymol

proxmox-mcp

by edymol

guest_health_summary

Provide a single read-only health summary per guest: live status, resource pressure, filesystem headroom, Docker container health, and backup recency, with actionable concerns.

Instructions

One consolidated read of a guest, on exactly the node named.

Read-only and idempotent. Combines live status, resource pressure against the guest's configured limits, filesystem headroom, Docker container health counts, snapshot and backup recency, and a short list of concrete concerns. Prefer this over calling get_guest_status, list_snapshots, list_backups, and list_guest_containers separately when the question is "how is this guest doing".

Each entry in concerns is a whole sentence naming both the observation and the threshold it crossed, so it can be quoted to an operator without further interpretation. An empty list means nothing that was read crossed a threshold; it does not mean everything was read, which partial and warnings report.

Three states stay distinguishable and none of them is an error. A guest that is not running reports its state, a warning, and no resource figures, because the zeroes the cluster carries for it describe nothing. A guest without Docker reports docker_available false and no container counts. A guest with no backup reports backup_count 0 and a null age, never an age of zero.

A vmid the cluster does not report on the node named raises a structured error naming both. Anything that could not be read yields a warning and partial, never an exception that hides the rest of the answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
vmidYes
profileNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
swapNo
vmidYes
coresNo
memoryNo
sourceYes
statusYes
partialNo
profileYes
concernsNo
warningsNo
containersNo
filesystemNo
guest_typeYes
backup_countNo
collected_atYes
snapshot_countNo
uptime_secondsNo
docker_availableNo
newest_backup_atNo
cpu_used_fractionNo
newest_snapshot_atNo
newest_backup_age_secondsNo
newest_snapshot_age_secondsNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only and idempotent nature, explains the meaning of an empty concerns list, differentiates three non-error states (guest not running, no Docker, no backup), describes partial results and warnings, and specifies error behavior for unknown vmid. This is thorough and goes beyond a simple 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 long but every sentence adds value: purpose, read-only assurance, what is combined, usage guidance, concerns semantics, edge cases, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically, making it easy to process.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, and edge cases, while the presence of an output schema means return value format doesn't need to be in prose. It answers likely agent questions about when to use, what to expect, and how failures are handled, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It implicitly references 'node' and 'vmid' in context ('on exactly the node named', 'a vmid the cluster does not report...'), but does not explicitly define them or their formats. The 'profile' parameter is never mentioned, leaving its purpose entirely undocumented. This is a clear gap for a 3-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a consolidated read of a guest on a given node, combining multiple health dimensions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_guest_status, list_snapshots, list_backups, and list_guest_containers by saying 'Prefer this over calling... separately'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over calling get_guest_status, list_snapshots, list_backups, and list_guest_containers separately when the question is "how is this guest doing"'. This directly names alternatives and provides a selection criterion.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/edymol/proxmox-mcp'

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