Check a Proxmox task's status by node and UPID, returning success only when the task has stopped with exit status OK.
Poll a task; completion succeeds only if status=stopped and exitstatus=OK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| upid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact completion condition (status=stopped and exitstatus=OK), which is important for polling loops and success determination.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the critical success condition. There is no redundant wording or filler.
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?
With an output schema present, return values do not need explanation. Combined with rich annotations and a clear success condition, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only polling tool. The main gap is parameter semantics, but that is already reflected in that dimension.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not explain what 'node' or 'upid' mean or how they identify a task, though the schema titles and patterns offer partial hints. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning.
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 states a specific action ('Poll a task') and a precise resource ('task'), with a clear completion condition. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_guest_status because it focuses on polling a single task's status and defines success criteria.
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 description implies polling a task is the use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like list_tasks or get_guest_status. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.