Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
windows98-mcp

windows98-mcp

by ido-pluto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

qemu_vm_delete

Destructive

Delete a QEMU VM by moving it to recoverable trash, retaining only the three newest VMs.

Instructions

Move a managed QEMU VM to recoverable broker trash; only the newest three entries are retained.

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": {
      "vm_id": "<vm_id>"
    },
    "name": "qemu_vm_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNo
vm_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only signal destructiveness; the description adds that deletion is recoverable and enforces a three-entry retention policy, which is useful beyond the structured data. It does not explain what force does, but the core non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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?

One compact sentence leads with the action and target, then appends the key retention constraint. Every word contributes; no filler or boilerplate.

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 two-parameter destructive tool without an output schema, the core effect and retention rule are stated clearly. However, the force parameter is left entirely unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap in knowing what happens when force is set to true.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. vm_id is inferable from the tool name, but force has no documented semantics (e.g., whether it bypasses trash or overrides a running VM), so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Move') and target ('managed QEMU VM' to 'recoverable broker trash'), clarifying that this is a soft-delete rather than permanent removal. The retention limit also distinguishes it from related trash-management siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing appears; the description never names qemu_vm_force_stop, qemu_vm_trash_empty, or qemu_vm_restore as alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the deletion/soft-delete path from context.

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