pve-mcp

pve_migrate

Migrate a guest VM or container to another Proxmox node. Online VMs move live without downtime; containers restart during migration.

Instructions

Migrate a guest to another node. Running VMs migrate live when online=true; containers restart.

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>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "pve_migrate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vmid`	Yes
`online`	No
`target`	Yes
`timeout`	No
`with_local_disks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key behavior that VMs migrate live while containers restart (implying downtime). It omits permission requirements, what happens on failure or partial migration, whether the call is synchronous or task-based, and how the timeout interacts with a live migration.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the one behavioral nuance that matters. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive-adjacent tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether local disks are migrated, what the timeout bounds, or whether a task handle is returned, all of which affect correct invocation.

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 must compensate for all five parameters. It explains only the meaning of online (live migration for VMs, restart for containers); vmid, target, timeout, and especially with_local_disks are left entirely undefined despite being non-obvious migration semantics.

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 specific verb and resource ('Migrate a guest to another node') and immediately names the destination concept. No sibling tool covers migration, so an agent can identify this as the migration operation without opening the schema.

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 description clarifies the effect of the online flag but never states when this tool should be chosen, what prerequisites exist (shared storage, target node capacity), or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than explained.

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