Skip to main content
Glama

Destroy a QNX target

target_destroy
DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a managed target's mkqnximage directory and its server state. Requires the target name to confirm and rejects symlinks, disallowed names, and unsafe paths.

Instructions

Stop and permanently delete a target this server manages: its mkqnximage directory under the targets dir and its server state. Refuses names outside the allowlist, symlinks and anything that is not an mkqnximage directory directly inside the targets dir. confirm must repeat the target name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "target_destroy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTarget name such as 'tb' (lowercase letters, digits, '-', '_'); must be inside the server allowlist
confirmYesMust equal name, to confirm the deletion

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description still adds real value by specifying exactly what is removed (mkqnximage directory plus server state) and the safety preconditions it enforces. It stops short of describing failure semantics, e.g. what happens if the stop succeeds but deletion fails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the destructive action and its scope front-loaded, then the guardrails, then the confirmation rule. The middle sentence is dense but every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the definition covers deletion scope, refusal conditions, and confirmation adequately. The remaining gap is routing: it does not point an agent to target_stop when only a halt is wanted.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates the confirm-equals-name rule. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries parameter meaning and the description adds no new syntax or format detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Stop and permanently delete a target") and defines the deleted scope (mkqnximage directory under targets dir plus server state). It is close to sibling-distinguishing versus target_stop, but the shared verb "Stop" creates slight ambiguity about which tool to use for a stop-only operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive semantics and the refusal rules (allowlist, symlinks, non-mkqnximage directories), which tell the agent when the call will fail. There is no explicit guidance such as "use target_stop to halt without deleting", which would help disambiguate from the closely named sibling.

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