ansible-mcp-server

proxmox-inventory

Refresh, list, or check status of Proxmox inventory resources such as VMs, templates, storage, nodes, and networks.

Instructions

Discover and manage Proxmox infrastructure inventory

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "proxmox-inventory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Inventory action
`force`	No	Force refresh even if recent
`categories`	No	Resource categories to scan

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description's single sentence must disclose behavior but falls short. It does not mention whether actions are destructive, require authentication, or produce side effects. The schema provides some detail but not behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or concurrency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more informative without adding significant length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema, the presence of multiple sibling tools, and three parameters with enums, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, the relationship between actions and categories, or how 'force' interacts with 'refresh'. The agent would have to rely solely on the parameter descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no further semantic value to the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Discover and manage Proxmox infrastructure inventory', which identifies the resource (Proxmox inventory) but uses the vague verbs 'discover and manage'. The action enum in the schema provides specificity, but the description itself does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'hardware-inventory' or 'discover-proxmox'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions where these specific actions (refresh, status, list) are appropriate.

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

Deploy Server