Skip to main content
Glama
CyberKnightLabs

vmware-knight

by CyberKnightLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

remove_host_vmk

Destructive

Remove a VMkernel adapter from an ESXi host after previewing impact; requires confirmation, with guarded protections and optional force override for deliberate teardown.

Instructions

[WRITE] Remove a VMkernel adapter - confirm-gated, guarded, fail-closed.

REFUSES (unless force_unprotected=True) when the vmk is selected for any host service (management/vmotion/vsan/...), lives on a non-default netstack (NSX TEPs on vxlan, dedicated vmotion/provisioning stacks - never visible in the service map), carries a default gateway route, or when any of that CANNOT be verified - unverifiable is treated as unsafe, never as clear. Test vmks created by add_host_vmk trip none of these and remove cleanly without force.

ABSOLUTE, no override: the host's only management-enabled vmk is never removable - this call rides the interface it would delete.

force_unprotected=True (together with confirm=True) overrides the non-absolute protections for deliberate teardown; the override and every bypassed protection are recorded in the result (and the audit trail).

Returns: Preview dict (action="preview") or result dict (action="removed", plus forced/protections_bypassed when overridden). Errors return a dict with "error" + hint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vmkYesDevice name to remove (e.g. "vmk2").
targetNovCenter target name from config.yaml; omit to use the default target.
confirmNoFalse (default) returns the blast radius and changes nothing. True removes it. Do not set True because the user asked earlier; they have not seen the preview yet.
host_nameYesESXi host the vmk lives on.
force_unprotectedNoTrue bypasses the non-absolute protections above.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.12.10

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description explains the confirm-gated preview flow, fail-closed semantics for unverifiable state, the absolute protection on the management vmk, and the audit trail. It also details return shapes for preview, success, and error cases. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place for a destructive, guarded operation. It front-loads the core action and safety posture, then covers guardrails, overrides, and return behavior without wasted prose.

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 dangerous mutation with no output schema, the description fully explains preview vs. removal results, error shape, override behavior, and audit outcomes. Combined with fully documented schema parameters secret, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to confirm and force_unprotected (e.g., "confirm=False returns the blast radius", "force_unprotected=True together with confirm=True overrides"), which clarifies the interplay between parameters beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 "[WRITE] Remove a VMkernel adapter," giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_host_vmk and list_host_vmks by scoping exactly what it does and its destructive nature.

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?

The description provides explicit when-not conditions: it refuses for management-enabled vmks, service-bound vmks, non-default netstacks, and default gateway routes unless forced. It also identifies a safe use case ("Test vmks created by add_host_vmk trip none of these"). It doesn't explicitly route to sibling alternatives for inspecting or reconfiguring vmks, but the exclusion conditions are strong enough for an agent to gauge suitability.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools