Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox VE MCP Server

Proxmox VE MCP Server

by MTDEV2312
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

configure_features_container

Set optional feature flags like nesting, keyctl, and fuse for an LXC container to enable advanced capabilities.

Instructions

Configure feature flags (nesting, keyctl, fuse) for an LXC container.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node": "<node>",
      "vmid": "<vmid>"
    },
    "name": "configure_features_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fuseNo
nodeYes
vmidYes
mknodNo
mountNo
keyctlNo
nestingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but only states that it configures flags. It does not mention that this is a mutation, whether flags are overwritten, if a container restart is required, or any side effects.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant text. However, the brevity detracts from completeness; it could have listed all flags or provided a brief usage hint while remaining concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks the full set of flags, no usage context, and no behavioral or return information, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It lists three flags (nesting, keyctl, fuse) but omits mknod and mount, and does not explain the required node and vmid parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool configures feature flags for an LXC container, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_network_container or update_resources_container, though it omits some flags (mknod, mount) present in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to specify node and vmid, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other container configuration tools.

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