Proxmox MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It successfully documents the auto-detect behavior for the node parameter and lists return fields (status, uptime, CPU, etc.). However, it lacks safety disclosure (read-only vs destructive), error handling, or performance characteristics.

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. First sentence establishes purpose efficiently. The Returns section may be redundant given context signals indicate an output schema exists, but it provides readable summary.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter tool with simple types. Covers parameter semantics and return values, but lacks safety annotations (readOnlyHint equivalent) or error scenarios that would help an agent handle failures gracefully.

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 (only titles 'Vmid', 'Node'). Description compensates by defining vmid as 'The VM or container ID' and node as 'The Proxmox node name (optional, will auto-detect)', clarifying optionality and behavior.

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' and resource 'current runtime status of a VM or container'. The term 'runtime' helps distinguish from sibling get_vm_info (likely static configuration), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_vm_metrics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_vm_metrics or get_vm_info. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., VM must exist, requires monitoring permissions).

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