Skip to main content
Glama
edymol

proxmox-mcp

by edymol

inspect_compose_stack

Inspect a Docker Compose project in an LXC guest on Proxmox, reporting status, service images, states, health, ports, networks, and mounts. Read-only, returns definitive answers even for absent projects.

Instructions

One compose project inside one LXC guest, on exactly the node named.

Read-only and idempotent. Reports the project's status, working directory, configuration file paths, and for each service its image, state, health verdict, working directory, published ports, attached networks, and persistent mounts, plus the networks the project owns.

Mount paths are returned; mount contents are never read -- no command form this server can issue opens a file. Environment variables are never returned, and neither are container labels or command lines.

An empty services list is an answer. A guest without Docker, a QEMU guest, and a guest that simply does not run a project under that name all return one with partial false and no warning: each is a question that was asked and definitively answered. A guest that is not running and a listing that could not be read return one with partial true and a warning, because those are questions that could not be asked. A single container whose inspection fails still appears as a service, carrying what the container listing knew.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
vmidYes
profileNo
projectYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
vmidYes
sourceYes
statusNo
partialNo
profileYes
projectYes
networksNo
servicesNo
warningsNo
working_dirNo
collected_atYes
config_filesNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it. It explicitly states the tool is 'Read-only and idempotent,' guarantees mount contents are never read, and that environment variables, labels, and command lines are never returned. It also explains the precise semantics of partial results and warnings, providing deep behavioral transparency beyond any typical annotation.

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. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured breakdown of report contents and then a well-organized explanation of edge cases. The formatting with bold markers for critical guarantees makes it easy to scan. Nothing feels redundant or wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is inspected, what is returned, and how to interpret unusual cases. The only notable omission is the 'profile' parameter, which is optional and not explained. Otherwise, the description provides complete contextual guidance for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 gives meaningful clues for three of four parameters: 'node' is named, 'LXC guest' maps to vmid, and 'project' is the compose project name. However, the optional 'profile' parameter is never mentioned, and with 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no additional clarity on what profile does or when to set it. The description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'One compose project inside one LXC guest, on exactly the node named.' and then enumerates exactly what it reports (status, working directory, config paths, per-service details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_guest_containers' or 'get_guest_config' by its focus on a single compose stack and its read-only inspection behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description establishes the precise scope: 'one compose project inside one LXC guest, on exactly the node named.' It also explains nuanced edge cases (empty services list, partial results with warnings, guests without Docker) that clarify when the tool is applicable and how to interpret responses. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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