List LXC containers on a Proxmox node or across the entire cluster.
List LXC containers
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_containers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Node name; if omitted, lists containers across the entire cluster |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as return format or permissions needed. This is acceptable given the annotations, but lacks additional useful details.
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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential information.
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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but lacks mention of the return value format (e.g., list of container IDs or names). Without an output schema, a brief note on what is returned would improve completeness.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with the 'node' parameter described as 'Node name; if omitted, lists containers across the entire cluster'. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'List LXC containers' clearly states the action (list) and resource (LXC containers), distinguishing it from other list tools like 'list_vms'. However, it does not mention the optional node-specific filtering, which is only hinted at in the parameter schema.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over sibling list tools or any context about when to include a node filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.