proxmox_agent_powerControl guest VM power via QEMU agent. Shut down, suspend to disk/RAM, or hybrid suspend using node and VM ID.
Guest power control via QEMU agent. operation=shutdown|suspend_disk|suspend_ram|suspend_hybrid (requires elevated permissions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node name where VM is located | |
| vmid | Yes | VM ID number | |
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is agent-mediated and requires elevated permissions. However, it does not disclose side effects such as VM shutdown vs. suspension behavior, whether the operation is graceful, or what happens if the agent is unavailable.
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?
A single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the operation values and permission requirement. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.
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 destructive, state-changing tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It captures the essential operation set and permission note, but omits important context such as when this tool should be chosen over sibling guest control tools, the need for a running QEMU agent, and expected effects/return behavior.
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 schema already documents node and vmid, and the operation enum fully defines allowed values. The description repeats the operation choices but does not add deeper meaning about node/vmid semantics or operation-specific prerequisites. With schema coverage at 67%, the description provides marginal additional value.
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 identifies the resource (guest power control) and the mechanism (via QEMU agent), and enumerates the exact supported operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_node_power or proxmox_guest_shutdown by specifying agent-based control rather than node-level or direct guest control.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_guest_shutdown, proxmox_guest_stop, or proxmox_agent_freeze. It mentions elevated permissions but does not state prerequisites like 'guest agent must be installed and running' or situations where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.