Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proxmox MCP Server

Proxmox MCP Server

by fredriksknese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_ha_resource

Destructive

Remove a resource from Proxmox HA management. Specify the resource ID (e.g., 'vm:100') to stop high availability monitoring and failover.

Instructions

Remove resource from HA

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": {
      "sid": "<sid>"
    },
    "name": "delete_ha_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sidYesResource ID to remove, e.g. "vm:100"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotaitons already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, which is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete tool with one well-described parameter and a destructive annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what HA means and potential side effects.

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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description for the sid parameter. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states 'Remove resource from HA' which clearly indicates the action (remove) and the resource (HA resource). It distinguishes from siblings like create_ha_resource and list_ha_resources.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools