Proxmox MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully documents the return structure (time-series data for CPU, Memory, Network, Disk I/O) and timeframe granularity options. It could improve by mentioning data aggregation behavior or error conditions for invalid VM IDs.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—purpose is front-loaded, parameter details are precise, and output specification is comprehensive without verbosity.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers inputs and outputs effectively. A minor gap is the lack of behavioral context regarding data resolution or potential latency when querying large timeframes like 'year'.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential compensation by fully documenting all three parameters: vmid (VM or container ID), node (optional Proxmox node name), and timeframe (with complete enum descriptions and default value noted).

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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Get historical metrics/performance data for a VM.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'historical metrics/performance data' distinctly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_vm_status (current state) and get_vm_info (configuration).

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 word 'historical' implies the intended use case (trend analysis vs. point-in-time status), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_vm_status or get_vm_info, nor any mention of prerequisites like VM existence.

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