Delete a custom image by its ID to remove previously uploaded images from your Contabo compute account.
Delete an uploaded custom image by its id [DELETE /v1/compute/images/{imageId}] Your are free to delete a previously uploaded custom images at any time
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imageId | Yes | The identifier of the image | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the DELETE endpoint and a vague statement that deletion is allowed at any time, but does not explain consequences such as whether the image is irrecoverable or whether in-use images can be deleted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the core action and endpoint. The second sentence is somewhat awkward and contains a typo, but it does not significantly detract from an otherwise efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive delete operation whose annotations already communicate destructiveness and idempotency, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the action, resource, identifier, and endpoint. It could add a note about irreversibility or constraints, but nothing critical is missing for an agent that also inspects the annotations and schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 imageId and x-trace-id clearly. The description only adds the phrase 'by its id', which maps to the required imageId parameter but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: delete an uploaded custom image by its id, and even includes the HTTP endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate this operation from sibling image tools such as retrieve_image or update_image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage-like statement is that you are free to delete a previously uploaded image at any time, which is not guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.