Lists all storage resources on a Proxmox VE node or across the entire cluster.
List storage
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_storage"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Node name to list storage for. If omitted, lists cluster-wide storage. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 extra behavioral context. It does not disclose what the output contains, any limitations, or side effects beyond what the 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), which is under-specified. While conciseness is valued, this lacks essential information to be useful. It is not a well-structured description that earns its place.
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?
Given no output schema and a sparse description, the tool is incomplete. It does not explain what 'storage' means, what is listed (e.g., volumes, disks, paths), or any formatting details. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the 'node' parameter has a description in the schema). The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description is 'List storage', which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not provide a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_storage_content' or other list tools. No context about what 'storage' refers to.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use 'list_storage' over potentially similar tools like 'get_storage_content' or other listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.