Skip to main content
Glama

proxmox_guest_shutdown

Gracefully shut down a specific Proxmox VM or LXC container after confirming the action. Returns the accepted task UPID.

Instructions

Gracefully shut down one explicitly targeted Proxmox guest after confirmation and return the accepted task UPID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYesProxmox node name
typeYesGuest type: qemu or lxc
vmidYesProxmox guest VMID from 1 through 999999999
confirmYesMust be true to confirm the explicit guest action target
endpointYesExplicit Proxmox endpoint name from config

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.41.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Added value: +[
      +  "qemu",
      +  "lxc"
      +]
  2. Addedv0.23.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden: it discloses the graceful-shutdown semantics, the mandatory confirmation gate, and that the call returns an accepted task UPID (an async task, not a synchronous result). It omits permission/auth requirements and any timeout or force-fallback behavior, so it falls short of fully rich disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, scope, precondition, and return value with no wasted words. Optimal for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: target scope, confirmation precondition, and the async UPID return. It lacks auth prerequisites and error/timeout expectations, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (node, type, vmid, confirm, endpoint) is already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the confirmation semantics of 'confirm' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (gracefully shut down) and resource (one Proxmox guest), plus the confirmation requirement and return value. The 'gracefully' qualifier and 'one explicitly targeted guest' scope make it clearly distinct from sibling proxmox_guest_reboot and proxmox_guest_start without needing their schemas.

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?

'After confirmation' implies the confirm gate and the single-target scope implies this is a targeted stop, but it does not explicitly say when to choose shutdown over reboot or how to handle a hanging guest (force stop). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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