proxmox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_vm

Provision a QEMU virtual machine on a Proxmox node, specifying resources like CPU cores and memory, network interface, and disk. Returns a task ID or final status.

Instructions

Create 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>",
      "vmid": "<vmid>",
      "extra": "<extra>"
    },
    "name": "create_vm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`net0`	No	virtio,bridge=vmbr0
`node`	Yes
`vmid`	Yes
`wait`	No
`cores`	No
`extra`	Yes
`scsi0`	No
`memory`	No
`ostype`	No	l26
`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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type but fails to describe side effects (e.g., resource consumption, required permissions, or potential failures). The creation process is essentially opaque.

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 a single sentence and is front-loaded with the action. However, it is too brief given the tool's complexity, leaving many important details unsaid.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings, default behaviors, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for reliable agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters (3 required), the description adds no meaning to any parameter except a brief mention of 'wait=True'. It does not explain what 'node', 'vmid', 'extra', 'cores', etc. represent or how they affect the VM creation.

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 action 'Create a QEMU VM' and distinguishes from siblings like clone_vm and create_container. It also mentions the return type (UPID or task status), which adds specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the wait parameter but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other VM-related tools like clone, start, or stop. No alternatives are mentioned.

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