infrastructure-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

proxmox_start_vm

Start a QEMU VM or LXC container on a Proxmox node with confirmation (confirm: true). Returns a task UPID for async tracking, not a completion status.

Instructions

Start a QEMU VM or LXC container on a Proxmox node. This is a state-changing action: it requires confirm: true, and returns without acting if confirmation is missing. Starting is asynchronous — the response carries a task UPID, not confirmation the guest has finished starting; check it with proxmox_tasks. Set dry_run: true to see the exact API call that would be made without needing confirm at all.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node`	Yes	the cluster node the guest lives on
`type`	No	guest type: 'qemu' (default) or 'lxc'
`vmid`	Yes	the guest's numeric VM/container ID
`confirm`	No	must be true to actually start the guest; otherwise the tool reports what it would do without acting
`dry_run`	No	if true, report the exact API call that would be made and return without acting or requiring confirm
`instance`	Yes	the inventory proxmox instance name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`upid`	No
`vmid`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`instance`	Yes
`timestamp`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1Oct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / dry_run

Added value: +{
+  "description": "if true, report the exact API call that would be made and return without acting or requiring confirm",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the call state-changing, that it silently no-ops without confirm:true, that the operation is asynchronous returning a UPID rather than a completion signal, and that dry_run bypasses confirm entirely. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before firing a mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then preconditions, async caveat, and dry_run alternative in descending order of importance. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything the schema cannot: confirmation gating, the no-op-on-missing-confirm behavior, async/UPID semantics, and the follow-up tool. Return-value detail is legitimately left to the output schema.

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 100%, so confirm and dry_run semantics are already fully documented in the schema and the description largely restates them. It adds no format or value constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Start) and resource (QEMU VM or LXC container on a Proxmox node), and the scope is precise enough to separate it from sibling proxmox_stop_vm without opening any schema. Nothing tautological or vague.

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?

Explains the confirm-gating precondition, the dry_run escape hatch, and points to proxmox_tasks for follow-up, which is clear operational context. It does not explicitly contrast against proxmox_stop_vm or other lifecycle siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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