proxmox-mcp

proxmox_delete_vm

Delete a stopped VM permanently from a Proxmox node. Returns a task UPID to monitor completion with proxmox_task_status.

Instructions

Permanently delete a VM (the VM must be stopped first). Returns the task UPID — use proxmox_task_status to check whether it finished.

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": "proxmox_delete_vm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	Yes
`vmid`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, but description discloses permanent deletion, prerequisite, and asynchronous return (UPID). Does not mention permission requirements or error conditions, but sufficient for a deletion tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: action, precondition, return value, follow-up action.

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?

Covers core aspects: purpose, prerequisite, return type, next step. Could mention purging configuration or error states, but output schema likely covers return details.

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 coverage is 0% and description offers no additional meaning for 'node' or 'vmid'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for missing 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Permanently delete a VM'. Distinguishes from siblings like proxmox_delete_container and proxmox_vm_action by specifying VM and requiring it to be stopped.

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?

Provides explicit precondition (VM must be stopped) and post-action guidance (use proxmox_task_status). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server