Skip to main content
Glama

pve_ceph_fs_list

List configured CephFS filesystems on a Proxmox node, showing pool assignments and IDs.

Instructions

READ-ONLY: configured CephFS filesystems. ADVERSARIAL (reversed from REVIEWED_TRUSTED by the Wave 6d review, 2026-07-17 — see ceph.py module docstring's Wave 6d Taint section): name validates against ^[^:/\s]+$ only, no length cap, and is creatable by any cephx-capable client holding mon caps, not only through pve_ceph_fs_create — the same channel that already landed pve_list_guests/pve_snapshot_list in taint.ADVERSARIAL_TOOLS. This tool's own entry (GET /nodes/{node}/ceph/fs returns.items) is ALSO the schema's one genuinely schema-open shape on this plane ("additionalProperties": 1, schema line 904) — narrower field COUNT than pool list/status, but not narrower in openness.

GET /nodes/{node}/ceph/fs. Smoke-confirm: shape not live-verified — expected [{name, metadata_pool, metadata_pool_id, data_pool, data_pool_ids, data_pools}, ...] per schema truth (data_pool/metadata_pool are kept for backwards compat; data_pools/data_pool_ids carry the FULL set for a multi-data-pool filesystem).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeNoPVE node name to query; defaults to the configured node if omitted.
proximo_targetNoWhich configured Proxmox target to run this call against — a target name from your multi-target config (a specific PVE/PBS/PMG/PDM box). Omit to use the single/default target from the environment; the selection applies only to this call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as READ-ONLY, which is key behavioral info. It also mentions the expected output shape. However, it does not disclose permissions needed, rate limits, or side effects. Given no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly verbose with internal developer notes (taint, schema line numbers) that are irrelevant for an AI agent. The first sentence is good, but the rest is cluttered and not concise.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description's redundant mention of expected fields is unnecessary. The tool is simple, but the description lacks sufficient context (e.g., prerequisites, common use cases) to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema documents the parameters. The description briefly mentions node defaults and proximo_target usage but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening 'READ-ONLY: configured CephFS filesystems' clearly states the tool's purpose. The description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pve_ceph_pool_list, but the resource name suggests CephFS filesystems. The core purpose is clear.

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 (e.g., other ceph list tools). There is no mention of required privileges, preconditions, or when not to use it. The 'Smoke-confirm' section does not provide actionable usage advice.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/john-broadway/proximo'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server