Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
proxmox-mcp

proxmox-mcp

by m3m0ng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_vm_config

Update a Proxmox QEMU VM's configuration by providing the node, VM ID, and at least one configuration parameter to modify.

Instructions

Update the configuration of a QEMU VM (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_vm_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
vmidYes
configYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates mutation ('Update', 'PUT') but does not disclose required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, rate limits, or error conditions. Behavior is minimally transparent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Update the configuration of a QEMU VM (PUT)') and adds a key constraint. No wasted words; every part is valuable.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and minimal parameter documentation, the description does not fully equip an agent to use the tool. The config parameter's structure is unspecified; the agent would need external knowledge or rely on sibling tools like vm_config to understand possible fields.

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%; the description adds only 'requires at least one field', which clarifies that the config object must contain at least one property. However, it does not explain the individual parameters (node, vmid, config) or their expected formats/types, leaving the agent to infer.

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 explicitly states 'Update the configuration of a QEMU VM (PUT)', which clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (VM configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_config (GET) and set_container_config (container-focused).

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 notes 'requires at least one field', implying the config parameter must have content, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs recreate). Usage context is implied but not detailed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools