pve-mcp

pve_backup

Back up selected Proxmox VE guests with vzdump to a storage, running one job per node that hosts those guests.

Instructions

Back up guests with vzdump to a storage. Runs one job per node that hosts the guests.

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": {
      "vmids": "<vmids>",
      "storage": "<storage>"
    },
    "name": "pve_backup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	snapshot
`notes`	No
`vmids`	Yes
`storage`	Yes
`timeout`	No
`compress`	No	zstd

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it supplies only one trait: that one job is dispatched per hosting node. It says nothing about whether the call blocks until completion, how the timeout interacts with long-running vzdump jobs, that it is non-destructive to the guest, or what permissions/storage capacity are required.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form even though the content is thin; the problem is missing detail, not bloat.

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, which lightens the burden. However, for a six-parameter, job-dispatching mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin on parameter meaning and execution behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, yet it only hints at the storage parameter ("to a storage") and touches nothing else. The mode enum (snapshot/suspend/stop), compression options, notes, vmids, and timeout semantics — all consequential for a backup — are left entirely undocumented.

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 — "Back up guests with vzdump to a storage" — which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not differentiate from siblings like pve_snapshot, so an agent must infer that this is the vzdump archive path rather than a snapshot operation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The proximity of pve_snapshot and pve_clone in the sibling set makes the missing distinction (archive backup vs. snapshot vs. clone) a real gap.

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