infrastructure-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

proxmox_stop_vm

Force-stop (hard power-off) a QEMU VM or LXC container on a Proxmox node. Requires confirm: true; returns a task UPID for async tracking.

Instructions

Force-stop (hard power-off, not a graceful shutdown) a QEMU VM or LXC container on a Proxmox node. This is a dangerous, service-impacting action: it requires confirm: true, and returns without acting if confirmation is missing. Stopping is asynchronous — the response carries a task UPID, not confirmation the guest has finished stopping; 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 stop 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 action dangerous and service-impacting, states the confirm requirement and what happens without it, explains the asynchronous return (UPID, not confirmation), and points to proxmox_tasks for verification. It also explains dry_run's effect on the confirm requirement. This is more behavioral context than most mutation tools provide.

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?

Three sentences, each front-loaded and purposeful: the action and its semantics, the danger/confirmation gating, then the async caveat and dry_run escape hatch. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.

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 destructive, no-annotation, async mutation tool, the description covers danger, confirmation gating, async result handling with a named sibling, and a dry-run alternative. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in the description. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 the schema already documents node, type, vmid, confirm, dry_run, and instance. The description adds meaning for confirm and dry_run (what they gate and return), but doesn't elaborate on node/type/vmid beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (force-stop) and resource (QEMU VM or LXC container on a Proxmox node), and immediately clarifies the semantics of 'stop' as hard power-off rather than graceful shutdown. This distinguishes it from the sibling proxmox_start_vm and from any graceful shutdown concept.

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?

Explicitly states the gating condition (requires confirm: true, otherwise it returns without acting) and mentions dry_run as a safe alternative for inspecting the call. It routes the agent to proxmox_tasks for checking the asynchronous result. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against a graceful shutdown sibling (none is listed), so the when-not guidance is implicit.

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