proxmox-mcp

proxmox_container_action

Perform lifecycle actions on Proxmox containers, including start, stop, shutdown, reboot, suspend, and resume, by specifying the node and VM ID.

Instructions

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>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "proxmox_container_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	Yes
`vmid`	Yes
`action`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description lists actions but does not disclose side effects, state changes, async behavior, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for informed agent decisions.

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?

Very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could better structure the parameter list inline. No unnecessary sentences, but missing details limit overall effectiveness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action list. However, it lacks explanation for node/vmid, and no guidance on action selection or preconditions, making it only minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning only for the 'action' parameter by listing valid values. The 'node' and 'vmid' parameters are left unexplained, relying solely on their names which may be ambiguous.

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 tool runs lifecycle actions on a container and lists specific actions (start, stop, shutdown, reboot, suspend, resume). This distinguishes it from sibling tool proxmox_vm_action which targets VMs.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The list of actions implies usage for container lifecycle management, but lacks context on prerequisites, ordering, or when specific actions are appropriate.

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

Deploy Server