InsideOut (Riley)

Destroy Infrastructure

tfdestroy

Destructive

DESTROY: Tear down previously deployed infrastructure Destroys infrastructure by calling the Oracle destroy endpoint for a session that has a prior successful deployment. IMPORTANT: This starts a long-running job. Use tfstatus/tflogs to monitor progress. SINGLE-FLIGHT: only one TF job per session at a time. If another job is already in flight, tfdestroy returns tf_job_conflict with the live job_id — attach with tfstatus/tflogs, or pass force_new=true to override. REQUIRES: session_id from convoopen response (format: sess_v2_...). OPTIONAL: force_new (boolean, default false) - bypass the single-flight guard. Use only when the existing run is provably wedged. PREREQUISITE: The session must have a prior successful deployment with a project_id. After destroy completes, the session is kept for historical record but hasDeployment is set to false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force_new`	No	When true, bypass the single-flight guard and force a new destroy even if another job is in flight.
`session_id`	Yes	Session ID from convoopen — pass back EXACTLY as returned, including the ?token=... suffix (format: sess_v2_?token=). The suffix is part of the session credential; never strip it when summarizing. The deployed stack for this session will be torn down.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses long-running job behavior, single-flight constraint, conflict response format, force_new override semantics, and that hasDeployment is set to false after completion. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear section labels and is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose, repeating 'tfstatus/tflogs' multiple times and including detailed conflict handling that could be condensed. Still, every sentence carries relevant information.

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, long-running tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, monitoring, conflict handling, force_new use, and post-completion state changes. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents session_id including the token suffix warning. The description adds a usage caveat for force_new ('Use only when the existing run is provably wedged'), but otherwise does not substantially exceed the schema. Baseline 3, raised to 4 for the caveat.

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 opens with 'DESTROY: Tear down previously deployed infrastructure' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tfdeploy (deploy) and tfplan (plan) by focusing on destruction and requiring a prior successful deployment.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit guidance: requires a session_id from convoopen, prerequisites (prior successful deployment), and explains single-flight conflict handling with tf_job_conflict and how to use force_new as an override. It also directs monitoring via tfstatus/tflogs.

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

All InsideOut (Riley) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with clear domain prefixes (convo*, tf*, stack*, aws/gcp inspect) separating conversation, deployment, versioning, and cloud inspection. The batch variants (awsinspect_batch, gcpinspect_batch) are explicitly scoped as higher-throughput versions of their singular counterparts, so no ambiguity exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly consistent: lowercase concatenated verb_noun patterns dominate (convoopen, tfdeploy, stackrollback, awsinspect). However, submit_feedback uses snake_case, and help stands alone as a generic utility, breaking the otherwise uniform lowercase-concatenated style.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the heavier side, but the count is justified by the breadth of the domain: conversation workflow, multi-cloud inspection, Terraform lifecycle, stack versioning, and utilities. Each tool fills a distinct role, so while slightly high, the count is not bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full infrastructure lifecycle: conversation and design (convoopen/convoreply/convostatus), Terraform generation and deployment (tfgenerate/tfplan/tfdeploy), monitoring (tfstatus/tflogs), teardown (tfdestroy), drift detection, stack versioning, and cloud inspection. No critical dead ends; only a missing explicit cancel/abort for running jobs is a minor gap.

Resources

Need Help?