proxmox_guest_pausePause a QEMU virtual machine on a specific node using its VM ID, suspending execution without shutting down the guest.
Pause a QEMU virtual machine — VM only (requires elevated permissions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node name where VM is located | |
| vmid | Yes | VM ID number |
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 idempotentHint=true, so the description's main added value is the permission note ('requires elevated permissions'). It also states 'VM only', which clarifies the scope. However, it doesn't describe side effects beyond the permission requirement, such as what happens to network connectivity or whether the guest is left in a consistent state. With annotations covering destructive and idempotent aspects, the description adds some useful context but not rich behavioral detail.
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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Pause a QEMU virtual machine') and adds a brief scope/permission note. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and permission requirement. The annotations handle destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It could mention what happens to the VM's state (e.g., memory remains) but that's an advanced detail. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both node and vmid are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already explains each parameter, the description's contribution here is minimal, justifying the baseline score of 3.
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: 'Pause a QEMU virtual machine'. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from other guest operations by noting 'VM only', which hints it applies to VMs rather than LXC containers, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like start/stop/resume. Clear enough for an agent to know what it does.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions a permission requirement ('requires elevated permissions'), which is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. An agent is not told when to choose pause over stop or suspend, or what situations call for pausing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.