proxmox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_container

Create an LXC container on a Proxmox node, returning a UPID. Optionally wait for task completion to receive final status.

Instructions

Create an LXC container; 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>",
      "vmid": "<vmid>",
      "ostemplate": "<ostemplate>",
      "storage": "<storage>",
      "extra": "<extra>"
    },
    "name": "create_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`net0`	No	name=eth0,bridge=vmbr0,ip=dhcp
`node`	Yes
`vmid`	Yes
`wait`	No
`cores`	No
`extra`	Yes
`memory`	No
`rootfs`	No
`storage`	Yes
`hostname`	No
`ostemplate`	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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context: it returns a UPID or task status when 'wait=True'. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., resource consumption), required permissions, or potential failure modes.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core action and return behavior efficiently. No extraneous words, and the key conditional ('wait=True') is front-loaded.

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?

Despite output schema existing (but not shown), the description is inadequate for a tool with 12 parameters and no schema descriptions. It omits prerequisites, parameter relationships, and operational details, leaving an incomplete picture for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 12 parameters. The description adds no explanation beyond parameter names, leaving critical fields like 'extra', 'rootfs', and 'hostname' unclarified, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 'Create' and the resource 'LXC container'. It also distinguishes the return behavior (UPID vs final status) based on the 'wait' parameter, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like clone_container or create_vm.

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 alternatives such as 'clone_container' or 'create_vm'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., template existence, node state) or conditions where waiting is beneficial.

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