proxmox-mcp

by m3m0ng

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

set_container_config

Update an LXC container's configuration by providing node, VMID, and a config object with at least one field.

Instructions

Update the configuration of an LXC container (PUT); requires at least one field.

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>",
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "set_container_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a PUT operation but lacks any disclosure of side effects (e.g., whether container restarts, error handling, required permissions, or idempotency). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence, no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, clearly stating the verb, resource, method, and a constraint.

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 tool's complexity (updating LXC container configs), the absence of output schema, parameter details, and behavioral context makes it incomplete. The agent cannot infer return values, error states, or required preconditions accurately.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions on properties). The description only adds that the tool 'requires at least one field', which is ambiguous. It does not explain what the 'config' object contains or what values are valid, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 ('Update the configuration of an LXC container') and the HTTP method ('PUT'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'container_config' (GET) and 'set_vm_config' (for VMs). The phrase 'requires at least one field' further clarifies the minimum input.

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 usage (you update configuration via PUT) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use. No guidance on reading current config first or container state requirements.

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