proxmox-mcp

by m3m0ng

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

shutdown_vm

Gracefully shut down a Proxmox QEMU virtual machine using ACPI signals and receive a task identifier for tracking.

Instructions

Gracefully shut down a QEMU VM via ACPI; 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": "shutdown_vm"
  }
}

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?

No annotations provided, so description must cover all behavioral aspects. Mentions ACPI and returns UPID, but lacks details on graceful behavior (timeout, guest response), permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence is concise but could be restructured with more key information; no wasted words but missing critical details.

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 and lack of annotation or output schema detail, the description is insufficient; does not explain return format, error handling, or differentiation from similar sibling tools.

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 description adds no meaning beyond field names; does not explain what node and vmid are or any constraints.

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?

Describes specific action 'shut down' on resource 'QEMU VM' with method 'via ACPI', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like stop_vm (forceful) and shutdown_container (different resource).

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?

Only hints at graceful shutdown but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, no prerequisites or restrictions.

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