Skip to main content
Glama

pve_node_storage_backend_delete

Remove a storage backend (LVM, LVM-thin, ZFS, or directory) from a Proxmox node. Requires confirmation to execute the irreversible destroy with optional cleanup of underlying disk data.

Instructions

MUTATION: destroy a storage backend on the node.

RISK_HIGH, NO UNDO — backend-specific blast: zfs: destroys the zpool and ALL data on it lvm/lvmthin: removes the VG — any storage built on it breaks directory: removes the directory mapping (data on disk may persist)

To create one instead use pve_node_storage_backend_create; to see what exists first use pve_node_storage_backend_list. Dry-run by default (returns a PLAN); confirm=True executes (DELETE, Smoke-confirm) and returns {"status": "submitted", "result": <task UPID | None>}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the storage backend to destroy.
nodeNoPVE node name the backend lives on; defaults to the configured node if omitted.
backendYesStorage backend type to destroy: one of lvm, lvmthin, zfs, directory.
cleanupNoIf True, also removes the underlying disk data/partitions during backend removal.
confirmNoFalse (default) returns a dry-run PLAN only; True executes the irreversible 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?

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses the destructive nature: 'RISK_HIGH, NO UNDO' and details backend-specific blast effects for zfs, lvm/lvmthin, and directory. Also explains dry-run default and execution return format.

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 compact and well-structured: starts with purpose, then risk, then backend-specific details, then links to siblings, then explains execution flow. Every sentence is useful with 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 tool's complexity (6 params, high risk, mutation), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, risk, backend-specific behavior, how to use confirm parameter, and return format. Output schema is implied but return shape is described.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the dry-run vs execution behavior tied to the 'confirm' parameter and the risk per backend type, which goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 storage backend on the node' with the verb 'destroy' and the resource 'storage backend'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'pve_node_storage_backend_create' and 'pve_node_storage_backend_list' by name and purpose.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use alternatives: 'To create one instead use pve_node_storage_backend_create; to see what exists first use pve_node_storage_backend_list.' Also explains dry-run vs execution behavior with confirm parameter.

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