proxmox_guest_resumeResume a paused QEMU virtual machine in Proxmox using its node and VM ID. Restore VM operation when elevated permissions are required.
Resume a paused 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 cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting that elevated permissions are required and that the VM must be paused, which helps the agent reason about preconditions and authorization.
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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds scope and permission context efficiently.
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 two-parameter action tool, the description covers the purpose, the precondition (paused VM), the scope (VM only), and the permission requirement. Annotations cover safety and idempotence, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this 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 already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema carries the full burden.
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 states a specific verb ('Resume'), a specific resource ('paused QEMU virtual machine'), and an explicit scope ('VM only'), which matches the tool's title and distinguishes it from container-related operations. This is immediately clear to an agent.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a QEMU VM is paused and needs to be resumed. It also adds an exclusion ('VM only'), signaling it is not for LXC containers, though it does not name alternative tools such as proxmox_guest_start for stopped VMs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.