skypilot-mcp

skypilot_volume_delete

Destructive

Deletes specified cloud volumes by name, with optional purge to remove from database even if cloud deletion fails. Returns a request_id for tracking.

Instructions

Delete one or more volumes by name. Set purge=True to force deletion from the database even if the cloud deletion fails. 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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "skypilot_volume_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes
`purge`	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 already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the two-layer deletion model (cloud vs. database) and the fact that purge overrides a failed cloud delete. It does not mention auth needs or reversibility, so it stops short of 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-obvious purge behavior immediately after. Every sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns (it mentions request_id as a bonus). For a destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the remaining gap is what happens to resources still using the volume and whether deletion is reversible, but the core call semantics are complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: purge=True is explained precisely (force DB deletion even if cloud deletion fails), and 'by name' clarifies the names argument. The array-of-names semantics could be spelled out further, but the key parameter is well covered.

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 (delete) and resource (volumes), with scope ('one or more ... by name'). It is clearly distinct from the volume_apply/ls/validate siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly, which caps it below 5.

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 gives useful guidance on the purge flag (use it to force DB deletion when cloud deletion fails), but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server