Delete a Jail by CTID or name, optionally removing its rootfs and MAC objects. Target a specific cluster node or omit it for cluster-wide deletion.
Delete a Jail, optionally removing its rootfs and MAC objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jail | Yes | Jail CTID or name. | |
| node | No | Target cluster node hostname or UUID. Omit for cluster-wide. | |
| context | No | Named login context from ~/.config/sylve/config.yaml. | |
| delete_macs | No | ||
| delete_rootfs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description does add value by naming what gets destroyed (rootfs and MAC objects), but calling it "optionally" is misleading given both flags default to true — an agent reading only the prose would assume nothing is removed unless asked.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no padding. Nothing to cut.
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 destructive 5-parameter operation with no output schema and two undocumented boolean parameters, the description is too thin: no statement of irreversibility, no prerequisites (jail state, running containers), and no clarification of the destructive defaults that determine whether data is actually lost.
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?
Schema coverage is 60%; jail, node, and context are documented in the schema itself, while delete_macs and delete_rootfs have no schema descriptions. The prose gestures at those two booleans ("rootfs and MAC objects") but omits the critical fact that both default to true, which is the single most decision-relevant parameter detail here.
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?
Specific verb + resource ("Delete a Jail") plus the notable consequence (rootfs and MAC removal). The verb alone differentiates it from sylve_jail_show / sylve_jail_list / sylve_jail_action, though it never says anything about the VM counterpart or the jail lifecycle siblings.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus sylve_jail_action (which likely handles stop/restart) or sylve_jail_snapshot/backup before deleting. No prerequisites such as whether the jail must be stopped first, and no warning about irreversibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.