proxmox-mcp

by edymol

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_backups

List backup volumes with guest, format, size, timestamp, and per-guest recency; identifies guests without any backup.

Instructions

Backup volumes with their guest, format, size, and timestamp, plus recency per guest.

Read-only and idempotent. Recency covers every guest in scope whether or not it has a backup, because a guest missing from a backup listing is the most important thing such a listing reports.

A storage that cannot be listed yields a warning and partial; the storages that could be read are still reported.

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": "list_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`vmid`	No
`profile`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`backups`	No
`partial`	No
`profile`	Yes
`recency`	No
`warnings`	No
`collected_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is read-only and idempotent, explains the semantics of missing backups, and details partial failure behavior with warnings and partial results. This is rich, valuable context beyond a basic listing.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core output, the second adds critical interpretive context, and the third clarifies failure behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers key behavioral aspects such as read-only/idempotent, partial failures, and the significance of missing backups. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Slight gap remains around parameter usage configuration, but overall it is contextually sufficient for an agent.

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%, and the description does not explain node, vmid, or profile, nor how they affect scope. The phrase 'per guest' and 'every guest in scope' hints at filtering, but the parameters themselves are not named or described, leaving the agent with inadequate guidance.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Backup volumes with their guest, format, size, and timestamp, plus recency per guest.' This clearly defines what the tool returns and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_snapshots or list_guests.

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 implies when to use the tool by focusing on backup listings and recency per guest, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its use for backup assessment, but explicit exclusions would be stronger.

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

Deploy Server