skypilot-mcp

skypilot_local_down

Destructive

Tear down the local Kubernetes cluster started by local_up, returning a request_id. Requires the API server to be running locally.

Instructions

Tear down the local Kubernetes cluster started by local_up. Only works when the API server is running locally. Returns a request_id.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "skypilot_local_down"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=true; the description goes beyond that by scoping exactly what is destroyed (the local cluster created by local_up) and by disclosing the local-API-server prerequisite, which is a real operational constraint. It does not describe reversibility or failure behavior, but it adds meaningful context over the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the precondition follows immediately. The final 'Returns a request_id' sentence is largely redundant given a declared output schema, so it is tight but not perfectly waste-free.

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?

For a simple teardown tool with an output schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers action, scope, and precondition adequately. The notable gap is the undocumented 'name' parameter, leaving the agent unsure whether any selector should be passed.

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?

The single parameter 'name' has 0% schema coverage and is never mentioned in the description, which instead refers to 'the local Kubernetes cluster' in the definite, implying no selector is needed. With low coverage the description should compensate for the unexplained parameter but does not.

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 (tear down) and resource (the local Kubernetes cluster started by local_up), and pins its identity to the counterpart skypilot_local_up, which distinguishes it from the many other *_down siblings (cluster_down, ssh_down, pool_down, serve_down).

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?

Adds a clear precondition — 'Only works when the API server is running locally' — and implies the inverse pairing with local_up as the correct context. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer cluster_down or other teardown tools, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server