proxmox-mcp

proxmox_find

Search for a VM or container by partial name to retrieve its ID, node, and type, preparing for administrative actions.

Instructions

Find a VM or container by name (partial matches are supported). Returns the vmid, node, and type — useful before running admin actions.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "proxmox_find"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses partial match support and the return fields (vmid, node, type). It implicitly signals a read-only operation without explicit side effect notes. Additional clarity on error behavior or authentication requirements would improve transparency, but the description is adequate.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it matches (partial), and what it returns. The presence of an output schema relieves the description from detailing return structure.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining that the name parameter supports partial matches, which is a critical usage detail not evident from the schema alone. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action (find), the resource (VM or container), the method (by name with partial match), and the output (vmid, node, type). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all action-oriented, making its lookup purpose obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly positions the tool as useful before running admin actions, implying it is a prerequisite. While it does not elaborate on when not to use or alternative lookup methods, the context of sibling action tools provides sufficient guidance for typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server