proxmox_guest_shutdownShut down a VM or LXC container gracefully by specifying node, type, and VMID, preventing abrupt termination. Requires elevated permissions.
Gracefully shutdown a VM (type=vm) or LXC container (type=lxc) (requires elevated permissions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node name where VM is located | |
| type | Yes | ||
| 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 disclose destructiveness and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying 'gracefully' (implying ACPI shutdown vs. force) and the elevated permission requirement, which are not in annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.
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, front-loaded sentence that covers the action, resource type, and a key prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and invocation.
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 3-parameter tool with all parameters required, the description covers the core behavior, target types, and permission needs. Annotations supply destructive/idempotent hints, and the schema documents node and vmid. Missing explicit alternative routing is a minor gap, but an agent has enough 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?
The schema describes node and vmid but leaves the 'type' parameter undocumented. The description fills this gap by explaining that type=vm refers to VMs and type=lxc to containers, thereby clarifying the parameter's meaning and its allowed values. It also reinforces the roles of node and vmid.
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 (shutdown), the target resources (VM or LXC container), and the qualifying behavior (graceful). It specifies the 'type' parameter values and even notes the elevated permission requirement, making it distinct from related tools like proxmox_guest_stop (force stop) or proxmox_guest_reboot.
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 phrase 'Gracefully shutdown' implies a soft-stop method vs. a hard stop, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as proxmox_guest_stop or conditions for when to use each. The permission note is a prerequisite but not a full usage guideline. An agent would need to infer the distinction from the word 'gracefully'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.