Change a Proxmox VE guest's power state—start, stop, shutdown, reboot, suspend, or resume—with explicit confirmation to prevent accidental actions.
Change guest power state (start/stop/shutdown/reboot/suspend/resume). Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| node | No | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| wait | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/no-network profile is covered. The description adds a real prerequisite (confirm=true) beyond the structured fields, but omits the crucial behavioral distinction between 'stop' (hard) and 'shutdown' (graceful), and says nothing about whether wait/timeout block. The listing of 'stop' alongside destructiveHint=false is a mild tension worth surfacing but not a direct contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the one hard precondition. Every clause earns its place with no padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, but for a 7-parameter destructive-capable power tool with zero schema documentation, the description does too little: no node/kind resolution behavior, no wait/timeout semantics, and no indication that suspend/resume require a running/QEMU guest respectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It enumerates the 6 action enum values (duplicating the schema) and mentions confirm, but leaves kind, node, vmid, wait and timeout entirely unexplained — including whether node/kind are auto-resolved when omitted, which materially affects correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('guest power state') with the full action set enumerated in parentheses, so an agent immediately knows this is the VM/LXC power-control tool. It is clearly distinct from siblings like pve_update_vm or pve_delete_vm, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (power-state transitions) and adds one hard prerequisite, 'Requires confirm=true', which is genuinely actionable. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over pve_update_vm or pve_get_vm, and no warning about which actions are disruptive or irreversible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.