Permanently delete a Proxmox VE VM or container snapshot when you need to remove rollback points; requires explicit confirmation because deletion cannot be undone.
Delete a snapshot (irreversible). Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| node | No | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| wait | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| snapname | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description earns credit for adding two non-annotation facts: the deletion is irreversible and a confirm flag must be passed. It stops short of describing what happens to dependent state, whether the operation blocks, or what the wait/timeout flags change.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the irreversibility warning and the mandatory confirm flag front-loaded where the agent will see them first. Nothing is wasted and nothing important trails.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the destructive nature plus the confirm requirement are covered. However, with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified to be considered complete for a destructive mutation tool — notably the node/kind selectors and the wait/timeout blocking behaviour.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it only explains one of them (confirm=true). The semantics of node, kind, wait and timeout — the parameters an agent is most likely to get wrong — are left entirely unexplained by both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description pairs a specific verb ('Delete') with a specific resource ('a snapshot'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like pve_create_snapshot, pve_rollback_snapshot and pve_list_snapshots without needing to name them. An agent can pick this tool from the list on the strength of the first three words.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(irreversible)' and the 'Requires confirm=true' clause imply this is a destructive operation that demands deliberate invocation, but the description never states when to choose delete over rollback, nor any exclusions or preconditions such as snapshot existence or node selection. Usage is inferable from the verb rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.