Proxmox MCP Server

delete_container

Destructive

Remove a container from a Proxmox node by VMID, with optional purge of configurations and force destruction if running.

Instructions

Delete container

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": {
      "node": "<node>",
      "vmid": "<vmid>"
    },
    "name": "delete_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node`	Yes	The node name
`vmid`	Yes	The container VMID
`force`	No	Force destruction even if running
`purge`	No	Remove container from all related configurations

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates the tool is destructive, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It fails to mention the effect of the force or purge parameters, or what happens to running containers.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While short, the description is under-specified and merely repeats the tool name. It does not earn its place by providing useful information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks details on container lifecycle, behavior when running, and configuration purging.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but does not detract either.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete container' is a tautology with the tool name. It provides no additional scope or differentiation from sibling tools like delete_vm or delete_container_snapshot, making it vague and uninformative.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, destructive nature (though annotation covers it), or any context for usage.

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

Deploy Server