proxmox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

start_vm

Start a QEMU virtual machine on a specified Proxmox node, initiating the boot process and returning the unique task identifier.

Instructions

Start a QEMU VM; 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": "start_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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it starts a VM and returns a UPID. No disclosure of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped), or behavior if VM is already running.

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, which is concise but lacks critical information. It is not structured for readability and omits important 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 simplicity of starting a VM, the description omits essential context like error handling, async nature (returns task ID), and existence checks. Output schema may supplement, but description alone is insufficient.

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% and description adds no parameter details. The two parameters ('node', 'vmid') are not explained beyond schema types, which is insufficient for low coverage.

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 ('Start') and resource ('QEMU VM'), and mentions the return value ('task UPID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start_container' and 'shutdown_vm' by specifying the VM type.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'start_container' or 'reboot_vm'. No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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