Unofficial-Proxmox-MCP

pve_delete_snapshot

Delete a VM or LXC container snapshot; the required confirmation phrase blocks accidental deletion and protects historical state.

Instructions

Delete a snapshot from a VM or LXC container.

SAFETY REQUIREMENT: Deleting a snapshot merges or purges historical states. If confirmation_phrase is not provided, this tool will safely block and ask you to confirm with confirmation_phrase='CONFIRM_DELETE_SNAPSHOT_'.

Args: vmid: Target VM or Container ID. snapname: Snapshot identifier to delete. confirmation_phrase: Explicit confirmation phrase (e.g. 'CONFIRM_DELETE_SNAPSHOT_pre-upgrade'). node: Optional node 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": {
      "vmid": "<vmid>",
      "snapname": "<snapname>"
    },
    "name": "pve_delete_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`vmid`	Yes
`snapname`	Yes
`confirmation_phrase`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive semantics ('merges or purges historical states') and a built-in safety gate that blocks and returns a prompt when confirmation_phrase is absent. It does not cover irreversibility of the merge, permission requirements, or failure modes for a non-existent snapshot.

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?

One-line purpose statement, then the safety-critical information, then parameter docs — the risky part is front-loaded where an agent cannot miss it. No filler sentences; every line carries operational value.

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 tool with no annotations, the description supplies the safety gate, the confirmation format, and parameter meanings, and an output schema already covers return values. The only missing piece is what happens on confirmation-free calls beyond blocking, i.e. whether any state change occurs on the first attempt.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters are explained in the Args block, including that node is optional and, critically, the literal format of the confirmation token ('CONFIRM_DELETE_SNAPSHOT_<snapname>'). Minor gap: vmid is not qualified as VM-versus-container, which matters for this API.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Delete a snapshot from a VM or LXC container.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from create/rollback/list snapshot siblings by name alone. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 'SAFETY REQUIREMENT' section clearly defines the confirmation workflow and the exact phrase expected when confirmation is missing. However, there is no guidance on when to delete versus roll back or list first, nor any prerequisite such as verifying the snapshot exists or checking current guest state.

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