Proxmox MCP Server

update_container_config

Idempotent

Update a Proxmox container's configuration by specifying node, VMID, and optional parameters like hostname, memory, swap, cores, or description.

Instructions

Update container config

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": "update_container_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node`	Yes	The node name
`swap`	No	Swap in MB
`vmid`	Yes	The container VMID
`cores`	No	Number of CPU cores
`memory`	No	Memory in MB
`hostname`	No	Container hostname
`description`	No	Container description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Update' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, such as specifying required permissions or that changes take effect immediately.

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?

The description is extremely concise (three words). While it could benefit from slight expansion for clarity, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and directly states the tool's purpose.

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 the lack of an output schema and the moderate complexity (7 parameters), the description should explain what the tool returns or any side effects. It offers no such information, leaving the agent without crucial context for using the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already provides full meaning. The description does not add any extra parameter details or usage examples, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'container config', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_vm_config or update_network. However, it lacks any additional context to differentiate it further.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_vm_config). There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where another tool might be preferred.

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

Deploy Server