Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox VE MCP Server

Proxmox VE MCP Server

by MTDEV2312
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

delete_container

Delete an LXC container and purge its associated resources. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental data loss.

Instructions

Delete an LXC container and purge resources. DESTRUCTIVE: Requires confirm=True.

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": {
      "node": "<node>",
      "vmid": "<vmid>"
    },
    "name": "delete_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
vmidYes
confirmNo
destroy_unreferenced_disksNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and requires 'confirm=True', which is a critical safety disclosure. However, it does not detail effects on snapshots or running state, leaving some gaps, but the key destructive trait is clearly flagged.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and follows with a critical safety warning. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive 4-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the core action and confirm guard but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped), reversibility, and what happens to associated resources. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the confirm parameter and vaguely hints at 'purge resources' which relates to destroy_unreferenced_disks. Node and vmid are not explained, though they may be self-evident. This is insufficient for a 4-param tool with no 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'LXC container' and adds 'purge resources', clearly indicating permanent removal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_vm (for VMs) and stop/shutdown (which don't delete).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (deleting a container) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, such as stop_container for non-destructive actions or delete_vm for VMs. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it relies on the name and context.

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