proxmox-mcp

by m3m0ng

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

stop_container

Hard-stop an LXC container on a Proxmox node; returns the task UPID.

Instructions

Hard-stop an LXC container (immediate power off); 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": "stop_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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('hard-stop', 'immediate power off') and the return value. It does not mention idempotency or side effects but is sufficiently clear for a simple action.

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 with no filler, directly stating the action and return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (stop container) and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description is complete enough. It conveys the core behavior without unnecessary details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names (node, vmid). However, the parameters are self-explanatory from their names and types, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (hard-stop), the resource (LXC container), and distinguishes from siblings like shutdown_container by specifying 'immediate power off'. It also mentions the return value (task UPID).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for hard stop via 'immediate power off', distinguishing from graceful shutdown (shutdown_container). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor provide exclusions.

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