Skip to main content
Glama

pve_ceph_pool_destroy

Destroy a Ceph pool and all stored data. Dry-run by default; set confirm=True to execute.

Instructions

MUTATION: destroy a Ceph pool.

RISK_HIGH: destroys the pool and ALL data stored in it — UNRECOVERABLE via the API (a recreated pool with the same name is a fresh EMPTY pool, not a restore). No upstream cmd-safety check exists for pool destroy. CAPTURE-or-declare: reads the current pool list before planning (also readable directly via pve_ceph_pool_list, ADVERSARIAL — taint marked when tracking is on); if unreadable -> complete=False. Dry-run by default (returns a PLAN); confirm=True executes (DELETE /nodes/{node}/ceph/pool/{name}) and returns {"status": "submitted", "result": }. No rollback primitive on this plane.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the pool to destroy.
nodeNoPVE node the pool is on; defaults to the configured node if omitted.
forceNoIf True, destroys the pool EVEN IF IN USE. NEVER defaulted on — only forwarded when explicitly set.
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.
remove_storagesNoRemove all pveceph-managed PVE storage entries configured for this pool. Schema-defaults False.
remove_ecprofileNoRemove the erasure-code profile too, if applicable. Schema-defaults True.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation ('MUTATION'), destructive ('destroys the pool and ALL data stored in it — UNRECOVERABLE'), and explains the dry-run/confirmation mechanism. It also notes absence of an upstream cmd-safety check.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized. It front-loads the purpose and risk, then details parameter behavior and tool limits. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 complexity of the operation (destructive mutation), the description is complete. It covers purpose, risk, dry-run behavior, parameter details, and references sibling tools. The high schema coverage and detailed description leave no gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema. For example, it explains that 'confirm=True executes' and for 'force' it states 'NEVER defaulted on — only forwarded when explicitly set.' It also clarifies the effect of 'remove_storages' and 'remove_ecprofile'.

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 the tool's purpose: 'MUTATION: destroy a Ceph pool.' It specifies the verb (destroy) and resource (Ceph pool), and distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_ceph_pool_create and pve_ceph_pool_list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including dry-run behavior ('Dry-run by default (returns a PLAN); confirm=True executes') and risk level ('RISK_HIGH'). It also suggests alternatives: 'readable directly via pve_ceph_pool_list, ADVERSARIAL — taint marked when tracking is on'.

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