io.github.AIops-tools/proxmox-aiops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

vm_start

Destructive

Start a Proxmox VM by numeric VM ID and return the task UPID for status tracking. Omit the node to let the system auto-locate it.

Instructions

[WRITE] Start a VM. Returns the Proxmox task UPID. Inverse: vm_stop.

Args: vmid: Numeric Proxmox VM id. target: Proxmox target name from config. node: Node name; omit to auto-locate the VM.

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": {
      "vmid": "<vmid>"
    },
    "name": "vm_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`vmid`	Yes
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that it returns a Proxmox task UPID, signaling an asynchronous operation the caller must poll via task_status — context not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, tag, and return value in one sentence, followed by a compact args list. The 'Inverse: vm_stop' clause is mildly extraneous but earns its place as a routing hint; no filler otherwise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly surfaces the return value (UPID), and all three parameters are explained. For a simple start operation this is close to complete, with only precondition/auth details left implicit.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: vmid, target, and node are each given meaning, including the useful behavioral note that omitting node auto-locates the VM. It stops short of documenting types or constraints, but substantially fills the coverage gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Start a VM'), tags the write semantics with [WRITE], and names its inverse (vm_stop). This lets an agent separate it from vm_stop, vm_shutdown, vm_reboot, and the container sibling ct_start without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'Inverse: vm_stop' relation implies the complementary operation, and the [WRITE] tag hints at state-changing intent. However, it never states when to prefer this over vm_shutdown/vm_reboot, nor any precondition (e.g. VM must be stopped), leaving usage largely inferred.

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