List volumes, backups, ISOs, or container templates stored on a Proxmox VE storage. Specify node and storage, optionally filter by content type to identify available files and templates.
List volumes, backups, ISOs, or container templates in a storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| storage | 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond listing, which is acceptable given the annotations, but it also does not enrich behavioral understanding further.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, and the core action and resource are stated immediately.
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?
The tool is a read-only list operation with annotations and an output schema, so return value details are not needed. The description is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could briefly clarify the role of the node parameter or mention sibling tool list_storage for contrast.
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 must compensate. It does map the content parameter to human-readable categories ('volumes, backups, ISOs, container templates'), but it leaves the required node and storage parameters unexplained. Parameter names help, but the description only partially covers the parameter space.
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') and identifies a clear resource: volumes, backups, ISOs, or container templates within a storage. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_storage or list_nodes.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to enumerate storage contents of various types. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.