Clone a QEMU VM to a new ID on a Proxmox node, requiring confirmation to prevent accidental operations.
Clone a QEMU VM. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| node | Yes | ||
| newid | Yes | ||
| target | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| storage | No | ||
| source_vmid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the confirm requirement and does not explain side effects, asynchronous behavior, what resources are created or modified, or why confirmation is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with no filler. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with an output schema present, the description is incomplete: it lacks usage context, parameter explanations, and behavioral details. An agent cannot determine when to choose this tool or what the confirm flag protects against.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning to confirm. Required parameters (node, source_vmid, newid) and optional parameters (full, name, target, storage) are left unexplained, forcing the agent to rely on titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation ('Clone') and resource ('QEMU VM'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_create_qemu_vm or pve_migrate_vm. It could be slightly clearer about what cloning entails, but it is not vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides one explicit usage condition: 'Requires confirm=true', which is important because confirm defaults to false in the schema. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pve_create_qemu_vm or pve_migrate_vm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.