Removes a virtual machine by name from local or cloud fleets, regardless of running state, to reclaim resources.
Delete a machine, running or not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Machine name | |
| target | No | Which fleet to talk to. local is smolvm serve on this host; cloud is smol cloud at SMOL_CLOUD_URL. | local |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that running machines can be deleted, but it does not state permanence, cascading resource effects, or confirmation requirements.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or repeated keywords from the name. Every word adds information, especially the qualifier 'running or not.'
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 simple destructive operation with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and state condition. It could be stronger with a note that deletion is permanent or irreversible, but the current wording is minimally adequate.
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?
The schema already documents both parameters, including the target enum and default; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema parameter coverage, this is an acceptable baseline.
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?
The verb 'Delete' plus the object 'machine' clearly identifies the operation, and 'running or not' adds a meaningful scope qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'stop-machine', though the destructive verb makes the contrast implicit.
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?
The phrase 'running or not' gives useful context that this operation applies regardless of machine state, which helps an agent decide when deletion is allowed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer stop-machine versus delete-machine.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.