Create a QEMU virtual machine on a specified Proxmox node. Requires explicit confirmation to proceed.
Create a QEMU VM. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ide2 | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| net0 | No | ||
| node | Yes | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| cores | No | ||
| scsi0 | No | ||
| memory | No | ||
| ostype | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| sockets | No |
| 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 provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the call requires a confirmation flag, but it does not explain permissions, failure modes, async behavior, or side effects beyond the fact that a VM is created. This is minimal coverage for a mutation-oriented tool with no annotation safety net.
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 two short sentences contain no filler: the first tells the core action and the second communicates a crucial precondition. The information is also front-loaded with the action at the start.
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?
For a tool with 11 parameters, zero schema descriptions, zero annotations, and an output schema, a two-line description is not sufficient to let an agent correctly construct a request. Most parameter semantics and usage constraints are left implicit, and the description does not compensate for the almost total lack of schema guidance.
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 does not compensate: it only mentions confirm=true. The parameters node, vmid, ide2, scsi0, net0, memory, cores, sockets, and ostype are not explained, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance for Proxmox-specific fields such as ide2 or scsi0.
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 clearly names the action (Create) and the resource type (QEMU VM), so an agent can immediately identify the tool's main purpose. It is not explicitly cross-referenced with sibling creation/cloning tools, but the QEMU qualifier separates it from pve_create_lxc.
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?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool over related siblings like pve_clone_vm, pve_create_lxc, or pve_set_vm_config. The only usage-related information is the precondition 'Requires confirm=true', which is a mandatory parameter value rather than a real use-case selector.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.