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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what information is returned (node name, status, resources, uptime), but does not explicitly state safety characteristics (read-only, non-destructive) or performance constraints despite being a zero-parameter query operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of return values. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate completeness by summarizing the key returned fields. It appropriately focuses on scope clarification rather than parameter documentation.

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?

The tool has zero input parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or configuration is needed for this cluster-wide list operation, consistent with the empty input 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?

The description clearly states the specific action (List) and resource (Proxmox nodes in the cluster), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vms (virtual machines) and get_cluster_status (overall status vs individual node details).

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?

While there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, the detailed list of returned fields (CPU, memory, VM count) implies appropriate use cases for resource monitoring and node inventory. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like get_cluster_status.

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