Delete all retained QEMU trash entries permanently to free up VM disk space.
Permanently delete every retained QEMU trash entry.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "qemu_vm_trash_empty"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: 'permanently' clarifies irreversibility and 'every retained' clarifies full-scope deletion. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and object with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the irreversible scope is conveyed efficiently.
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 zero-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the action and scope, though it does not specify whether the action applies to the currently selected VM or to all VMs globally.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and a clear resource ('every retained QEMU trash entry'), with 'permanently' and 'every' signaling scope and irreversibility. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qemu_vm_trash_list and qemu_vm_restore.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qemu_vm_trash_list or qemu_vm_restore. There are no conditions, exclusions, or explicit routing cues; the only implicit signal is the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.