Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox MCP Server

Proxmox MCP Server

by fredriksknese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_container_status

Read-only

Retrieve the current status of a container on a Proxmox node by specifying the node name and container VMID.

Instructions

Get container status

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>",
      "vmid": "<vmid>"
    },
    "name": "get_container_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYesThe node name
vmidYesThe container VMID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already convey safety. The description does not add extra behavioral context (e.g., permissions, error handling), so it adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise, which is efficient, but it lacks substance. It does not fully earn its place as it could be more informative without being verbose.

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 sibling tools and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the status details (e.g., running/stopped) or any return structure.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, so baseline score applies.

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 'Get container status' clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'container status'. It is specific to containers, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_vm_status'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_container_config' or 'get_vm_status'.

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