pve-mcp

pve_create_guest

Create a Proxmox VE virtual machine or LXC container on a node, with optional start, dry run, and auto-assigned VM ID, using PVE-compatible parameters.

Instructions

Create a VM (type="qemu") or container (type="lxc") on a node. params follow the PVE create API, e.g. VM: {"name": "web", "memory": 2048, "cores": 2, "scsi0": "local-lvm:32", "net0": "virtio,bridge=vmbr0", "ostype": "l26", "scsihw": "virtio-scsi-single"}; CT: {"ostemplate": "local:vztmpl/debian-13...tar.zst", "hostname": "ct1", "rootfs": "local-lvm:8", "net0": "name=eth0,bridge=vmbr0,ip=dhcp"}. Use pve_api_describe("/nodes/{node}/qemu", "POST") for every option. vmid defaults to the next free id.

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": {
      "node": "<node>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "pve_create_guest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`vmid`	No
`start`	No
`params`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`timeout`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior not in the schema: vmid is auto-assigned to the next free id when omitted, and params follow the upstream PVE create API. However, it never states that creation is a mutating, likely asynchronous/task-backed operation, nor mentions permissions, dry_run, start, or timeout behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its type split, then the two payload examples, which are long but are the main value the description adds. The trailing sentence about vmid defaults sits after the examples rather than with parameter guidance, a minor ordering inefficiency; there is no filler.

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?

With 7 parameters including a nested free-form object at 0% coverage, an output schema present (so return values needn't be explained), and no annotations, the definition covers the creation payload well but leaves the operational controls (dry_run, start, timeout) and mutation/async semantics unexplained. An agent could form the call but not fully predict its side effects.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does partially: node, type, and params get concrete VM and CT payload examples, and vmid's default is explained. But three parameters (start, dry_run, timeout) get no semantic treatment at all, and the params object's structure and allowed keys are deferred entirely to an external describe call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Create a VM ... or container ... on a node') and disambiguates the two guest types via the type enum, with inline examples for each. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like pve_clone or pve_destroy_guest without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling pve_api_describe("/nodes/{node}/qemu", "POST") for the full option set, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It lacks any exclusion or prerequisite guidance, notably when to prefer pve_clone over a fresh create, and says nothing about required privileges.

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