TrueNAS MCP

Delete Dataset

delete_dataset

Delete a ZFS dataset from TrueNAS with a default preview-only dry run; set dry_run to false to remove it, and enable recursive to include child datasets and snapshots.

Instructions

Delete a ZFS dataset.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_dataset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Dataset path to delete, e.g. "tank/data/apps".
`dry_run`	No	Preview only (default True); set False to delete.
`recursive`	No	Delete child datasets/snapshots too.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'delete,' which signals a mutation, but it does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, the dry_run default behavior, or the consequences of recursive deletion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is too sparse for a destructive tool. It is concise without being appropriately informative for the operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Although the input schema is rich and an output schema exists, the description omits critical context for a destructive operation with no annotations. It does not explain the dry_run default or recursive deletion implications, leaving the agent under-informed about safe invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, dry_run, and recursive clearly. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a ZFS dataset.' This is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not distinguish it from siblings such as delete_snapshot or delete_share, nor does it clarify dataset-specific scope beyond the resource name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the relationship between delete_dataset and sibling tools like delete_snapshot or create_dataset. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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