mcp-cloudron

cloudron_uninstall_app

Remove applications from Cloudron instances with safety validation. Validates app existence and dependencies before performing the uninstallation operation.

Instructions

Uninstall an application with pre-flight safety validation. DESTRUCTIVE OPERATION. First validates via cloudron_validate_operation (checks app exists, no dependencies, backup recommended), then calls DELETE /api/v1/apps/:id. Returns 202 Accepted with task ID for async operation tracking.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "appId": "<appId>"
    },
    "name": "cloudron_uninstall_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appId`	Yes	The unique identifier of the application to uninstall

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 highlights 'DESTRUCTIVE OPERATION', details the validation process (checks app exists, no dependencies, backup recommended), specifies the API call (DELETE /api/v1/apps/:id), and describes the async response (202 Accepted with task ID).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and key warnings, followed by validation steps and API details, with every sentence adding essential information without waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with validation) and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, behavior, and process, though it could briefly mention error handling or prerequisites for completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter details, as it focuses on behavioral aspects rather than explaining the appId parameter further.

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 specific action ('Uninstall an application') and distinguishes it from siblings like cloudron_install_app, cloudron_configure_app, or cloudron_control_app by emphasizing its destructive nature and validation steps.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool by mentioning pre-flight safety validation and referencing cloudron_validate_operation for checks, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for similar operations.

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