Unofficial-Proxmox-MCP

pve_clone_system

Clone a Proxmox VE VM or LXC container from an existing template or system, creating either a full independent copy or a linked clone with optional target node and storage.

Instructions

Clone a new VM or LXC container from an existing template or system.

Args: source_vmid: Source template or instance VMID. new_vmid: Unique ID for the newly created instance (e.g. 301). new_name: Hostname or display name for the new system. full_clone: If True, makes an independent full clone. If False, creates a linked clone. target_storage: Storage pool name (e.g. 'local-lvm', 'fast-tier'). Optional. target_node: Target node name. Optional.

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": {
      "source_vmid": "<source_vmid>",
      "new_vmid": "<new_vmid>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "pve_clone_system"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_name`	Yes
`new_vmid`	Yes
`full_clone`	No
`source_vmid`	Yes
`target_node`	No
`target_storage`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does explain the key full_clone vs linked-clone distinction, but omits permissions required, whether the new guest is started, what happens to the source template, whether linked clones depend on the source remaining intact, and behavior on VMID collision.

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 front-loaded one-sentence summary followed by a compact args list; each line carries a distinct piece of meaning. The structure is efficient, though the Args block is closer to schema restatement than added insight in a few places.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and required/optional status is in the schema. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, side effects (disk consumption, linked-clone coupling to the source, power state) should be surfaced and are not.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all six parameters including useful examples (e.g. '301', 'local-lvm'). However it adds no constraints or format rules (VMID ranges, hostname validity, when target_node/target_storage may be omitted and what the defaults resolve to).

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 (clone) and resource (VM or LXC container) plus the source (existing template or system). It is clearly distinct from pve_destroy_system/pve_edit_system, though it does not explicitly contrast with pve_create_vm or pve_create_lxc.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool clones from an existing template/system rather than creating from scratch, which tacitly distinguishes it from pve_create_vm. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisite (e.g. source must be a template for linked clones), and no guidance on choosing between this and pve_create_lxc.

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