Remove a KVM virtual machine and its storage entirely. Keep storage with keep_storage, or force deletion without prompts. Designed for confirmed destructive operations.
Supprime complètement une VM KVM (définition + stockage) ⚠️ ATTENTION: Opération potentiellement destructive!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | ||
| vm_name | Yes | ||
| keep_storage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming exactly what is destroyed ('définition + stockage') and flagging the operation as potentially destructive. It does not explain force/keep_storage side effects, but the annotation coverage carries part of the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the main action front-loaded and the warning appended compactly. There is no filler or redundant explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for fully confident invocation. An agent still cannot tell what `force` does, how `keep_storage` interacts with the stated default, or what to expect after execution. Annotations cover the destructive profile but not the operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention `force` or `keep_storage` by name. The phrase '(définition + stockage)' only weakly hints that storage deletion is the default and that `keep_storage` may alter it, which is insufficient compensation for three undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Supprime') and resource ('VM KVM') and explicitly states the destructive scope: definition plus storage. This makes it unambiguous against siblings like vm_stop or vm_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The destructive warning implies this tool is only for full removal rather than stopping or copying, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites like backups. Usage context is mostly inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.