pve-mcp

pve_next_vmid

Returns the next free VM or container ID in the Proxmox VE cluster, so you can allocate IDs for new guests without conflicts.

Instructions

The next free VM/CT id in the cluster.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pve_next_vmid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it: it does not say the call is a read-only lookup, does not state whether the returned id is reserved or can be handed out again to a concurrent caller, and does not mention cluster-wide scope effects. For an id-allocation helper the reservation question is the single most important behavior and it is absent.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the returned value and the cluster scope. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a trivial, parameterless lookup and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. The only real gap is the undisclosed non-reservation/race behavior, which matters given the absence of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 next free VM/CT id in the cluster" names a specific resource (VM/CT id), a qualifier (next free), and a scope (in the cluster), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling, though no sibling plausibly duplicates this lookup, and the phrasing is a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. call before pve_create_guest), and no exclusion. Usage is only implied by the semantics of "next free id"; the agent must infer the create-guest workflow itself.

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