proxmox-mcp

by m3m0ng

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

cluster_resources

List cluster resources by type (e.g., vm, storage, node) to view Proxmox cluster inventory.

Instructions

List cluster resources of a given type (e.g. vm, storage, node).

Tool call template

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": "cluster_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource_type`	No		vm

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that it lists resources of a given type, but does not disclose output format, pagination, performance, or side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. No unnecessary words are present, and it gets straight to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the output contains. With many sibling listing tools, the description lacks context on how this tool differs or when to prefer it. It is barely adequate for a simple tool, missing crucial contextual information.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'resource_type'. The description adds examples (vm, storage, node), providing some context beyond the parameter name, but does not specify allowed values or constraints. For a simple string parameter, this is adequate but not strong.

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 description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'cluster resources', specifying a parameter 'resource_type' with examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_vms or list_nodes, which are type-specific listers. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the type-specific sibling tools (e.g., list_vms, list_nodes). An agent cannot decide whether to call this generic tool or the specialized ones based on the description alone.

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