Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox MCP Server

Proxmox MCP Server

by fredriksknese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_storage_content

Read-only

List the contents of a specified storage on a Proxmox node, with optional filtering by content type such as ISO, VZTmpl, backup, or images.

Instructions

List content of a storage

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node": "<node>",
      "storage": "<storage>"
    },
    "name": "get_storage_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYesThe name of the node
contentNoContent type filter: iso, vztmpl, backup, images, etc.
storageYesThe name of the storage

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no new safety or behavioral details. It merely states the obvious operation (listing), which doesn't go beyond what annotations imply.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose efficiently.

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?

While the description is clear, it lacks details about return values, pagination, error handling, or behavior when content is empty. The absence of an output schema means more burden on the description, which is not fulfilled. However, it is adequate for a simple list operation.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List content of a storage' is specific, using a clear verb ('List') and resource ('content of a storage'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'list_storage' (which lists storages) and other list operations.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering options, or when to choose this over other listing tools like 'list_containers' or 'list_vms'. The description lacks contextual cues for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools