Skip to main content
Glama

pve_agent_exec

Run commands inside QEMU guests via qemu-agent, with dry-run planning. Confirm to execute and poll for exit status.

Instructions

MUTATION: run a command inside a guest via the qemu-agent (async, polls for result).

Dry-run by default: without confirm=True you get a PLAN recorded to the ledger. Re-call with confirm=True to execute.

Requires PROXIMO_ENABLE_AGENT=1 and the VMID in PROXIMO_AGENT_ALLOWLIST. The command runs INSIDE the guest OS — no undo primitive on this plane.

Returns status="ok" only when the agent reports the process exited. Returns status="running" with pid when the poll deadline is reached before exit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeNoPVE node the guest runs on; omit to resolve automatically.
vmidYesNumeric VMID of the target QEMU guest (allowlist-scoped).
commandYesArgv list to run in the guest via the qemu-agent.
confirmNoFalse (default) returns a dry-run PLAN; true executes.
timeoutNoSeconds to poll for exit before returning status='running'.
proximo_targetNoWhich configured Proxmox target to run this call against — a target name from your multi-target config (a specific PVE/PBS/PMG/PDM box). Omit to use the single/default target from the environment; the selection applies only to this call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, async nature, polling, dry-run default, return statuses ('ok', 'running' with pid), and the lack of undo. This is comprehensive for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 relatively concise with a few focused sentences. It front-loads the purpose and key behavior (mutation, async) and then adds prerequisites and return values. Some redundancy exists (e.g., dry-run concept mentioned twice), but overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, async polling, permissions) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values, prerequisites, and the dry-run mechanism. It explains the two possible statuses and the need to re-call with confirm=True. The description is complete for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what is already in the input schema; it merely reinforces the confirm parameter's dry-run behavior. No additional parameter constraints or domain-specific meanings are introduced.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'run a command' and the resource 'inside a guest via the qemu-agent'. It is a mutation that is async and polls for results, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_agent_file_read or ct_exec by specifying the mechanism (qemu-agent) and the action (command execution).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: dry-run by default with confirm=True for execution, environment requirements (PROXIMO_ENABLE_AGENT=1, allowlist), and the async/polling behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ct_exec or pve_agent_file_write, but the prerequisites and mechanism are sufficiently detailed for correct invocation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/john-broadway/proximo'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server