Skip to main content
Glama
Bldg-7

Proxmox MCP Server

by Bldg-7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Resize Guest Disk

proxmox_guest_disk_resize
Destructive

Resize VM or LXC guest disks to a new size. Specify type, node, vmid, disk, and size with relative or absolute values.

Instructions

Resize guest storage for VM (type=vm) or LXC container (type=lxc) (requires elevated permissions)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diskYesDisk name (e.g., scsi0, virtio0, sata0, ide0)
nodeYesNode name where VM is located
sizeYesNew size with + for relative or absolute (e.g., +10G or 50G)
typeYes
vmidYesVM ID number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds an elevated-permissions note, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other operational behaviors like whether shrinking is supported or if the guest must be stopped.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, scope, and permission requirement efficiently, and every clause adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple enough that the schema and annotations cover most invocation needs, but the description omits caveats about disk resize limitations, such as relative vs absolute sizing concerns or whether the change requires a guest restart.

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 high (80%) and already documents disk, node, size, and vmid semantics. The description only restates the type enum values already present in the schema, adding minimal new meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Resize guest storage') and the resource scope (VM or LXC container). It is distinct enough from disk-move and other guest operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 description conveys applicable targets (VM/LXC) and a prerequisite (elevated permissions), but it does not explain when to choose this tool over related siblings like proxmox_guest_resize or proxmox_guest_disk_move.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools