proxmox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

clone_vm

Clone a Proxmox QEMU virtual machine to a new VM ID with options for full or linked clone, custom storage, and target node. Returns a task UPID or final status when wait is enabled.

Instructions

Clone a QEMU VM; returns a UPID, or final task status when wait=True.

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>",
      "source_vmid": "<source_vmid>",
      "newid": "<newid>",
      "extra": "<extra>"
    },
    "name": "clone_vm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full`	No
`name`	No
`node`	Yes
`wait`	No
`extra`	Yes
`newid`	Yes
`target`	No
`storage`	No
`source_vmid`	Yes
`wait_timeout`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that waiting returns final status, but omits critical details like whether cloning locks the source VM, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., storage usage). The return behavior is partially disclosed, but the overall transparency is low.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and return type. It is very concise, but the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail. Still, it is well-structured and easy to read.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain the output schema beyond UPID/status, nor does it cover important aspects like clone type (full/linked), target node/storage, or parameter dependencies.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only indirectly hints at the 'wait' parameter through the return behavior. No other parameter (full, name, newid, target, storage, node, source_vmid, wait_timeout, extra) is explained. This provides almost no semantic value.

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 ('Clone a QEMU VM') and the return type (UPID or final task status with wait=True). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like clone_container or other VM operations, which would help select the correct tool.

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?

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clone_container, create_vm). It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or constraints. The only operational hint is the wait parameter behavior, which is minimal.

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