Proxmox MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Effectively documents search behavior (cross-node when node omitted) and return structure (hardware, settings, status categories). Missing explicit safety confirmation (read-only nature) or performance notes about cross-node searches.

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?

Well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections. Front-loaded purpose statement followed by parameter details and structured return value list. Every element provides value; no 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?

Given output schema exists, the detailed return value list is helpful bonus context rather than required. Parameter documentation is complete despite empty schema. Sufficient for a 2-parameter read operation, though could mention Proxmox platform context explicitly.

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 has 0% description coverage (titles only). Description fully compensates by providing concrete example for vmid ('100, 101') and clear behavioral semantics for node ('If not provided, will search all nodes'). Adds essential context missing from 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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific VM or container'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling list_vms (single vs list) and get_vm_status (detailed config vs simple status) by emphasizing 'detailed configuration' including hardware, settings, and status.

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 useful guidance that omitting 'node' parameter searches all nodes, but lacks explicit comparison to siblings like get_vm_status or get_vm_metrics. Does not clarify when to use this comprehensive tool versus narrower alternatives.

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