Ploi.io MCP Server

Delete Ploi Docker container

ploi_delete_container

Destructive

Delete a Docker container from a Ploi server using its server ID and container ID, with explicit confirmation.

Instructions

Delete a Docker container from a Ploi server.

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": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>",
      "container_id": "<container_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "ploi_delete_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to confirm this destructive operation.
`server_id`	Yes	Ploi server ID.
`container_id`	Yes	Ploi Docker container ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's statement 'Delete' is consistent. The confirm parameter is a safeguard but is not mentioned in the description; its significance is only apparent from the schema. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, well-structured and front-loaded. However, it could include the critical confirm requirement without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive operation with 3 required parameters, the description is too minimal. It omits the confirm parameter's role, does not describe return behavior (or lack thereof), and provides no reassurance or warning beyond the annotation. The agent is left to infer important details from the schema alone.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is adequately described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context about the parameters (e.g., the purpose of confirm, how to obtain server_id or container_id).

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?

The description clearly states the action (Delete), the resource (Docker container), and the scope (from a Ploi server). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like ploi_create_container or ploi_list_containers.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description merely states the action without further context for decision-making.

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