Unofficial-Proxmox-MCP

pve_destroy_system

Safely deletes a Proxmox VE virtual machine or LXC container after mandatory confirmation gates, with optional data purge and protected-ID checks.

Instructions

Safely delete and remove a virtual machine or LXC container.

MANDATORY CONFIRMATION SAFETY GATES:

If confirm_vmid != vmid OR confirmation_phrase != 'CONFIRM_DELETE_', this tool will SAFELY REFUSE destruction and return a confirmation request. You must ask the user explicitly to confirm deletion before calling with the matching confirmation phrase.
Self-Protection: Cannot delete the container hosting this MCP server.
The target vmid MUST NOT be included in PVE_PROTECTED_VMIDS blacklist.
The instance will be cleanly stopped prior to deletion.

Args: vmid: Target ID of the VM or container to destroy. confirm_vmid: Must equal vmid as an explicit confirmation gate. confirmation_phrase: Must equal 'CONFIRM_DELETE_' (e.g. 'CONFIRM_DELETE_300'). purge_data: Whether to purge and release all associated virtual disks and backup files. 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>"
    },
    "name": "pve_destroy_system"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node`	No
`vmid`	Yes
`purge_data`	No
`confirm_vmid`	No
`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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses refusal behavior on a failed confirmation gate, self-protection against deleting the hosting container, a PVE_PROTECTED_VMIDS blacklist check, and that the instance is cleanly stopped before deletion. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Front-loaded verb and resource, then a short numbered safety-gate list, then the Args block. Headers and list numbering make it scannable, and every sentence conveys a distinct constraint with no repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a five-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, all parameters, failure modes, and safety preconditions. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 Args block does the documentation work, defining confirm_vmid as an equality gate and confirmation_phrase with the literal format 'CONFIRM_DELETE_<vmid>', plus purge_data's disk/backup release meaning. Only 'node: Optional node name' is thin and defaults (confirm_vmid=0, purge_data=true) are not restated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Specific verb pair ('delete and remove') plus resource ('virtual machine or LXC container') in the first line. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as pve_delete_snapshot or pve_edit_system, which operate on different resources.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to ask the user for confirmation before calling with the matching phrase, and explains what happens if the gate is not satisfied. It does not name siblings as alternatives, but none are needed for a destructive delete; the missing piece is only the reverse case (when not to delete at all).

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