proxmox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reboot_container

Reboot an LXC container on Proxmox to apply changes or restore functionality. Specify the node and VM ID to initiate the reboot.

Instructions

Reboot an LXC container; returns the task UPID.

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": "reboot_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	Yes
`vmid`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions returning a UPID, but does not disclose if the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or affects container state beyond reboot (e.g., downtime).

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks essential details. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information for selection; a brief description is acceptable only if comprehensive.

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?

Although there is an output schema (not shown), the description fails to provide behavioral context for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations. Usage guidelines and transparency gaps make it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details beyond the names 'node' and 'vmid'. Despite being somewhat obvious, the description should clarify expected values (e.g., node hostname, container ID) to compensate.

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 specifies the action (Reboot), the resource (LXC container), and the return value (task UPID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'reboot_vm' by targeting containers.

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 like shutdown_container/start_container or reboot_vm. There are no prerequisites, caveats, or context for optimal usage.

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