hcloud-mcp

delete_image

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a snapshot or backup image by ID; irreversible, so confirm with the user first. Fails if delete protection is enabled or for system/app images.

Instructions

Delete a snapshot or backup image (system/app images cannot be deleted). Fails if delete protection is on. Irreversible; confirm with the user first

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Image ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the delete-protection failure mode, the ineligibility of system/app images, and an explicit irreversibility + user-confirmation requirement. It stops short of describing the response or error shape, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler; the eligibility restriction is front-loaded, followed by the failure condition, followed by the safety warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers eligibility, failure conditions, reversibility, and required user confirmation. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the image ID, which is acceptable but unremarkable at this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (snapshot or backup image), and immediately narrows the scope by excluding system/app images. An agent can distinguish this from the many delete_* siblings (delete_server, delete_volume, delete_network) purely from the description.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for invocation: it will fail if delete protection is on, and system/app images are not eligible, plus an explicit 'confirm with the user first' instruction. It does not name an alternative tool for the excluded image types, which is the only gap.

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

Deploy Server