skypilot-mcp

skypilot_pool_down

Destructive

Delete specified worker pools or all pools at once. Enable purge to force deletion despite errors and return a request_id for tracking progress.

Instructions

Delete worker pool(s). Specify pool_names or set delete_all=True. Set purge=True to force deletion even with errors. 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_pool_down"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`purge`	No
`delete_all`	No
`pool_names`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

destructiveHint=true is already declared, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the purge flag forces deletion despite errors, and it discloses a return value (request_id). The key behavioral trait of error-forcing is unique to the description.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: verb+resource, selection guidance, purge behavior, return value. No waste and front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, yet the description still notes the request_id. For a 3-param destructive tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential invocation semantics and the error-forcing behavior. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify whether pool_names and delete_all can be combined.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the mutual exclusivity of pool_names vs delete_all (though not stated as exclusive, it says 'or') and clarifies purge semantics ('force deletion even with errors'), which the schema default of false does not convey.

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?

Specific verb (Delete) and resource (worker pool(s)), with the scope constraint made explicit. Among siblings like skypilot_pool_apply and skypilot_cluster_down, the resource (worker pool) and operation (delete) are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through the parameter guidance ('Specify pool_names or set delete_all=True'), which tells the agent how to invoke but not when to prefer this over alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or prerequisites are stated.

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

Deploy Server