Permanently delete a Proxmox VE virtual machine or container. Requires confirm=true to prevent accidental destruction; optionally purge and remove unreferenced disks.
Permanently destroy a VM/container. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| node | No | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| wait | No | ||
| purge | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| destroy_unreferenced_disks | No |
| 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 covered structurally; the description adds "Permanently" (irreversibility) and the confirm=true gate, which is real value. However it says nothing about the destructive optional flags (purge, destroy_unreferenced_disks) or what wait/timeout do, so an agent cannot reason about the scope of what gets deleted.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive nature lands first and the required flag follows. Slightly over-lean for a tool with 8 parameters, but nothing is wasted.
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. But for a destructive, 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unexplained — notably which optional parameters broaden the deletion and what wait/timeout imply.
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 8 parameters, so the description carries full burden, yet it explains only confirm=true. Data-destroying options like purge and destroy_unreferenced_disks, plus kind/node defaults, are left entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently destroy a VM/container") that clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like pve_get_vm and from non-destructive siblings like pve_update_vm. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the verb/resource pair is unambiguous.
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?
"Requires confirm=true" is a precondition, not guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as pve_update_vm or pve_vm_power (stop vs destroy). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.