Skip to main content
Glama

pve_ceph_osd_destroy

Destroy a Ceph OSD with dry-run planning; confirm executes removal and initiates data rebalancing.

Instructions

MUTATION: destroy a Ceph OSD.

RISK_HIGH: data it held is recovered/rebalanced onto remaining OSDs — durability risk if too few replicas/OSDs remain. cmd-safety ADVISORY citation (action=destroy, service=osd) is included in the plan's blast_radius — fail-open, never a gate. CAPTURE-or-declare: reads the OSD CRUSH tree before planning (also readable directly via pve_ceph_osd_tree); if unreadable -> complete=False. Dry-run by default (returns a PLAN); confirm=True executes (DELETE /nodes/{node}/ceph/osd/{osdid}) and returns {"status": "submitted", "result": }. No rollback primitive on this plane — recreate with pve_ceph_osd_create (a NEW OSD, different id, not a byte-for-byte restore of this one's data).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeNoPVE node the OSD is on; defaults to the configured node if omitted.
osdidYesOSD ID to destroy (0 is a valid id).
cleanupNoIf True, also destroy the underlying logical volumes (ceph-volume lvm zap --destroy + pvremove) and wipe leftover journal/block.db/block.wal partitions. Without this, LVs/partitions are left intact for inspection.
confirmNoFalse (default) returns a dry-run PLAN only; True executes the destroy.
proximo_targetNoWhich configured Proxmox target to run this call against — a target name from your multi-target config (a specific PVE/PBS/PMG/PDM box). Omit to use the single/default target from the environment; the selection applies only to this call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as MUTATION and RISK_HIGH, details data rebalancing risks, dry-run default, confirm parameter behavior, and the absence of a rollback mechanism. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does so comprehensively.

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 slightly verbose but well-structured, with clear headings (MUTATION, RISK_HIGH, cmd-safety) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed without loss of clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive action, dry-run, cleanup options, no rollback), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, risks, parameter behaviors, execution modes, recovery implications, and recreation alternative. The output format is also described, making it complete despite the output schema not being shown.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline goodness. The description adds workflow context (e.g., dry-run vs. execution via confirm, cleanup affecting LVs) that goes beyond the schema, enhancing understanding even though schema already describes each parameter.

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 'destroy a Ceph OSD' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_ceph_osd_create by mentioning recreation. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope (including dry-run behavior) is clearly defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (to destroy an OSD), includes the dry-run vs. execution workflow, and mentions pve_ceph_osd_create as an alternative for recreation. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other OSD modification tools like pve_ceph_osd_out.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/john-broadway/proximo'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server