List all Proxmox nodes in the cluster to see available hosts and their current statuses.
List all Proxmox nodes in the cluster
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_nodes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List all Proxmox nodes' clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, but it adds no detail about output shape, ordering, error behavior, or authentication requirements. For a simple zero-parameter list tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action, the object, and the scope, earning its place with zero wasted words.
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 parameterless list operation with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only missing piece is a hint about what the returned payload looks like, but that is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100% since there is nothing to document. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and none are missing. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Proxmox nodes in the cluster'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_vms and list_containers by naming the exact entity type, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.
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?
The intended use is implied: call it when you need the set of Proxmox nodes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_node_status for per-node detailed status, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.