Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox MCP Server

Proxmox MCP Server

by fredriksknese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_ha_resource

Add a virtual machine or container to Proxmox HA management, specifying restart and relocate limits and the desired state.

Instructions

Add a resource to HA management

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": {
      "sid": "<sid>"
    },
    "name": "create_ha_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sidYesResource ID, e.g. "vm:100"
groupNoHA group to assign the resource to
stateNoRequested resource state: "started", "stopped", "enabled", "disabled"
max_restartNoMaximum number of restart attempts
max_relocateNoMaximum number of relocate attempts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens if the resource already exists. With annotations already provided, the description adds minimal value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise at one sentence, but this comes at the expense of completeness. While concise, it lacks sufficient detail to be maximally helpful.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and a tool that modifies cluster state, the description omits crucial context like return values, error conditions, and the effect on the HA cluster. Significant gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining state transitions or the interplay between max_restart and max_relocate.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('resource to HA management'), distinguishing it from delete_ha_resource and list_ha_resources. However, it lacks specificity about what HA management entails, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other create tools (e.g., create_vm, create_firewall_rule). No prerequisites or context for using HA management are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools