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 and comprehensively documents the return structure (specific fields like vmid, type, maxmem). However, it omits operational context such as potential performance implications of listing all resources or required permissions.

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 detailed breakdown of return fields. No sentences are wasted; the content is front-loaded and information-dense.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has zero parameters, the description provides complete coverage by detailing the return structure and clearly defining the tool's scope relative to the Proxmox environment.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter documentation since the tool accepts no arguments.

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 scope ('all VMs and containers across all Proxmox nodes'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vm_info (single item retrieval) and list_nodes (infrastructure rather than workloads).

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 the description implies bulk enumeration use cases through phrases like 'all VMs' and 'across all nodes', it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_vm_info for specific VM details or performance considerations when listing large clusters.

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