Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox VE MCP Server

Proxmox VE MCP Server

by MTDEV2312
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

create_vm

Create a new QEMU virtual machine on a specified Proxmox VE node, configuring CPU, memory, storage, network, and boot options.

Instructions

Create a new QEMU virtual machine on a specified node.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_vm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cpuNohost
biosNo
bootNo
ide2No
nameYes
net0Novirtio,bridge=vmbr0
nodeYes
vmidNo
coresNo
scsi0No
memoryNo
ostypeNo
scsihwNovirtio-scsi-pci
socketsNo
descriptionNo

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 the full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, whether the VM starts automatically, resource requirements, or return behavior.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place but lacks the depth needed for a tool of this complexity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Despite high tool complexity (15 parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a bare action statement. It fails to convey what the creation involves, any prerequisites, or what the caller should expect.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 15 parameters. It only repeats 'specified node' without explaining syntax, defaults, or relationships.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create') and resource ('QEMU virtual machine') with a qualifier ('on a specified node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_container and clone_vm.

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, no exclusions or context for selection are mentioned.

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