Proxmox MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses return structure (cluster name, quorum status, node list, total resources), though it omits explicit safety/side-effect statements (implied by 'Get').

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?

Optimal structure: single purpose sentence followed by bullet-point return value documentation. Every element conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Complements the existing output schema well by summarizing the key data fields returned. Adequate for a parameterless read operation, though explicit idempotency or caching notes would perfect it.

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?

Zero parameters present, meeting the baseline expectation. No parameter semantics needed or provided, which is appropriate for an empty schema.

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?

States specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Proxmox cluster status and health'), clearly distinguishing from VM-focused siblings (get_vm_*, list_vms) by emphasizing cluster-wide scope and quorum concepts.

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?

Provides implied usage through specificity ('overall cluster status'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_nodes or how it differs from aggregating individual node statuses.

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