io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

rbd_image_delete

Destructive

Delete a Ceph RBD image and all its data irreversibly. Use dry_run=True to preview the deletion before committing.

Instructions

[WRITE][risk=high] Delete an RBD image and ALL its data. Irreversible.

Pass dry_run=True to preview.

Args: pool_name: Pool the image lives in. image_name: Image to delete (from rbd_ls). dry_run: If True, preview without deleting. target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pool_name": "<pool_name>",
      "image_name": "<image_name>"
    },
    "name": "rbd_image_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`dry_run`	No
`pool_name`	Yes
`image_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: irreversibility, that ALL data is destroyed, and a safe preview path via dry_run. It doesn't state permission/auth requirements or success/failure behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Risk tags and the critical irreversibility warning are front-loaded, followed by a clean Args block. No redundant or filler sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, risk, preview mechanics, and every parameter. Minor gaps remain around permissions and post-delete return behavior, but the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and documents all four parameters: pool_name, image_name (with its source rbd_ls), dry_run, and target (including the omit-for-default rule). Descriptions are meaningful though terse for pool_name/image_name, so not quite a 5.

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 (delete) and resource (RBD image) with explicit scope ('and ALL its data'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like rbd_snapshot_delete and pool_delete.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance ('Pass dry_run=True to preview') and routes discovery to the sibling rbd_ls via 'image_name (from rbd_ls)'. It lacks an explicit comparison to rbd_snapshot_delete for the snapshot-vs-image distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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