Skip to main content
Glama

pve_ceph_pool_list

Lists all Ceph pools on a Proxmox node, returning their current settings such as pool name, type, size, PG numbers, crush rule, and usage.

Instructions

READ-ONLY: all Ceph pools + their current settings. ADVERSARIAL (reversed from REVIEWED_TRUSTED by the Wave 6d review, 2026-07-17 — see ceph.py module docstring's Wave 6d Taint section for the full corrected argument): pool_name validates against ^[^:/\s]+$ only, no length cap, and is creatable by any cephx-capable client holding mon caps (or by Ceph itself, auto-creating pools with no operator action at all) — the same "operator-set, but free-text fields a guest/attacker can shape" channel that already landed pve_list_guests/pve_snapshot_list in taint.ADVERSARIAL_TOOLS. application_metadata is a third channel, populated by a raw ceph osd pool application set command entirely outside pve_ceph_pool_create/pve_ceph_pool_set.

GET /nodes/{node}/ceph/pool. Smoke-confirm: shape not live-verified — expected [{pool, pool_name, type, size, min_size, pg_num, pg_num_min, pg_num_final, pg_autoscale_mode, crush_rule, crush_rule_name, bytes_used, percent_used, target_size, target_size_ratio, application_metadata, autoscale_status}, ...] per schema truth. The per-pool GET /pool/{name} is a pure child-link directory index (not built) — use pve_ceph_pool_status for one pool's full current settings.

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
Behavior2/5

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

Description labels tool as READ-ONLY and lists expected response fields, but includes irrelevant ADVERSARIAL taint discussion about pool_name (which is not a parameter) and application_metadata channels, confusing the agent. No annotations to supplement, so the noise reduces transparency.

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?

Description is overly long and includes unnecessary detail about security taint that does not apply to this tool. The clear purpose is front-loaded but buried in confusing text.

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?

Despite output schema presence, description lists expected fields and notes the missing per-pool GET endpoint. However, the ADVERSARIAL taint section adds confusion, detracting from completeness.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema definitions for the two optional parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'READ-ONLY: all Ceph pools + their current settings' and mentions the HTTP endpoint, making the tool's purpose explicit. It also distinguishes from the sibling pve_ceph_pool_status for single pool details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides a clear context (list all pools) and directs to pve_ceph_pool_status for a single pool. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the read-only nature and alternative are well-indicated.

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