Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-proxmox

mcp-server-proxmox

by heybearc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_available_ctid

Find the next available container ID for a specified function category, ensuring unique CTID assignment within Proxmox.

Instructions

Get next available CTID in a specific function range

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": {
      "function": "<function>"
    },
    "name": "get_available_ctid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
functionYesContainer function category

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the action ('get next available CTID') but says nothing about side effects, error conditions, determinism, or what 'available' means. An agent cannot infer whether this is read-only or what happens on failure.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but missing key context: it does not state the return value type (e.g., integer CTID), whether the result is immediately usable, or any prerequisites. An agent would need to infer the output format from the name, which is not ideal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the single parameter with an enum and description. The tool description adds the phrase 'function range', which clarifies that the CTID is scoped by the function category. This goes slightly beyond the schema's 'Container function category' by linking it to the range concept.

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 clearly states a specific verb (get), resource (CTID), and scope (function range). It distinguishes itself from siblings, none of which mention CTID allocation, so an agent can readily identify its purpose.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called before create_container, nor does it name any sibling as an alternative. The usage context is entirely absent.

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