Skip to main content
Glama
Higangssh

homebutler

by Higangssh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

proxmox_guest_start

Start a specific Proxmox QEMU or LXC guest by endpoint, node, and VMID, requiring confirmation, and return the accepted task UPID.

Instructions

Start 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two meaningful traits: the action is asynchronous (returns an accepted task UPID rather than a final result) and it is gated on explicit confirmation. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or error/refusal behavior on an already-running guest.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target come first, followed by the confirmation gate and return value. Efficient, though slightly dense.

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 5-required-parameter async action with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its preconditions, and its return contract (task UPID), which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Permission/auth expectations and behavior on an already-running guest remain unstated.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the confirm gate and enum for type are already documented. The description only reinforces the 'targeted single guest' and 'confirmation' semantics, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (start) and resource (Proxmox guest) with a scope constraint ('one explicitly targeted'), so the agent knows this acts on a single identified guest. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from proxmox_guest_shutdown/reboot in text, but the verb and name make the boundary obvious.

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' and 'explicitly targeted' imply preconditions (the confirm flag, a specific vmid), which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the shutdown/reboot siblings or what confirmation workflow is expected.

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