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. It successfully documents the output structure (name, description, creation time, RAM state) and mentions the auto-detect behavior for the node parameter. However, it lacks operational details like error handling, performance characteristics, or confirmation that this is a read-only 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 perfectly structured with clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, uses bullet points for the output fields, and contains zero wasted words. The purpose statement is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool with 2 parameters and simple output, the description is appropriately complete. It documents inputs (compensating for empty schema) and outputs (despite existence of output schema), providing sufficient information for invocation. It could be improved by mentioning error cases (e.g., VM not found).

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 effectively compensates by documenting both parameters: 'vmid' is identified as 'The VM ID' and 'node' is explained as 'The Proxmox node name' with the critical behavioral note that it is optional and 'will auto-detect'. This adds necessary context missing from the 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 action ('List') and resource ('snapshots for a VM'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_vm_info' or 'get_vm_status' which also retrieve VM-related data.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_vm_status' instead). While the return value description implies it's for historical snapshot inspection, there are no explicit when/when-not recommendations.

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