Unofficial-Proxmox-MCP

pve_edit_system

Update CPU cores, RAM, notes, tags, and boot behavior for an existing Proxmox VM or container by specifying its VMID.

Instructions

Edit configuration parameters of an existing VM or container (CPU cores, RAM, notes, tags, onboot).

Args: vmid: Target VM or Container ID. cores: Number of virtual CPU cores to assign. memory_mb: Allocated RAM in megabytes (e.g. 4096 for 4GB). description: Notes / documentation markdown string. tags: Semicolon or comma-separated tags (e.g. 'web;production;docker'). onboot: Whether the system automatically starts on Proxmox node boot. node: Optional node name.

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": {
      "vmid": "<vmid>"
    },
    "name": "pve_edit_system"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`tags`	No
`vmid`	Yes
`cores`	No
`onboot`	No
`memory_mb`	No
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it: it never says whether omitted parameters are left untouched or reset to defaults, whether a reboot is required for changes to apply, or what permissions/state the guest must be in. The only behavioral content is the semantic of individual fields (e.g. onboot meaning start-on-node-boot), which is parameter-level rather than operation-level.

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 operation is stated in the first line and the field semantics follow as a compact Args list; every line conveys either a field's meaning or an accepted format. No filler or restatement of the tool name beyond the opening clause.

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 described, and all parameters are covered. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations at all, the description omits the partial-update contract (what happens to unspecified fields) and any restart/apply semantics, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the Args block documents all seven parameters, including the meaningful units ('memory_mb: Allocated RAM in megabytes (e.g. 4096 for 4GB)'), the accepted tag separators with an example string, and that node is optional. That is a substantial addition over the bare titles in the schema; only the exact string format for 'description' is left implicit.

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 and resource ('Edit configuration parameters of an existing VM or container') and enumerates the editable fields, which implicitly separates it from creation, deletion and disk-resize siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'existing VM or container' implies the target must already exist, and the field list implies which edits belong here (not disks, not lifecycle). There is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings such as pve_resize_disk or pve_lifecycle, and no statement of preconditions like requiring the guest to be stopped.

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