skypilot-mcp

skypilot_cluster_down

Destructive

Tear down a SkyPilot cluster completely, deleting all associated resources and attached disk data. Returns a request_id; use purge to remove the cluster fully.

Instructions

Tear down a cluster completely. All associated resources are deleted and data on attached disks is lost. Returns a request_id.

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": {
      "cluster_name": "<cluster_name>"
    },
    "name": "skypilot_cluster_down"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`purge`	No
`cluster_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already declares this is a destructive operation, but the description adds real value beyond it: it specifies that all associated resources are deleted and that data on attached disks is irreversibly lost, and it notes the request_id return. It stops short of stating approval/authorization requirements or whether the teardown is async.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the destructive consequence is stated immediately after the action. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values beyond the request_id mention. But the undocumented 'purge' parameter and the absence of any when-to-use/routing guidance leave real gaps for a destructive 2-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention the 'purge' parameter at all even though that boolean plausibly controls whether resources are force-deleted. Only cluster_name is implicitly covered by the phrase 'a cluster'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('tear down a cluster completely'), and the adverb 'completely' hints at the distinction from the sibling skypilot_cluster_stop. However, it never names the softer alternative, so an agent must infer the difference from the word 'completely' alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like skypilot_cluster_stop and skypilot_cluster_autostop available, the description never explains when an agent should tear down versus merely stop, nor any preconditions such as the cluster being stopped first.

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

Deploy Server