pve-mcp

pve_clone

Clone a Proxmox VM or container to a target node, using linked clones from templates by default or full clones when requested.

Instructions

Clone a VM or container (templates give linked clones unless full=true). target is the destination node.

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_clone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full`	No
`name`	No
`vmid`	Yes
`newid`	No
`target`	No
`storage`	No
`timeout`	No
`snapname`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

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. It discloses linked-clone semantics and the destination-node role of target, but omits important operational details such as newid assignment, storage placement, snapshot cloning, timeout behavior, and permission requirements.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral nuance about templates.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The output schema can cover return values, but the description is not complete enough for an eight-parameter clone operation with no annotations. It leaves key invocation details, especially destination VMID and storage behavior, to inference.

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% across eight parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only full and target, leaving vmid, newid, name, storage, timeout, and snapname undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Clone a VM or container.' It also clarifies template behavior, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as pve_create_guest or pve_migrate.

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?

It explains that templates produce linked clones unless full=true and that target is the destination node, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose cloning versus creating a new guest or migrating an existing one.

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