TrueNAS MCP

Delete Share

delete_share

Delete an SMB or NFS share by kind and share ID. Preview by default; set dry_run to false to permanently remove it.

Instructions

Delete an SMB or NFS share.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "share_id": "<share_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	"smb" or "nfs".
`dry_run`	No	Preview only (default True); set False to delete.
`share_id`	Yes	Share id (from list_shares).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 for a destructive mutation. It states 'Delete' honestly but omits irreversibility, whether shares must be unmounted or inactive first, permission requirements, and the fact that the default call is a non-destructive preview. That last omission is a meaningful behavioral gap for a delete tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately sized for a simple three-parameter operation. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but that is a completeness issue rather than a verbosity one.

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?

Computing the description against a destructive tool with no annotations leaves it under-specified. The output schema and 100% schema coverage cover the return values and argument formats, but the description should still flag the dry_run-then-commit workflow and the irreversibility of the operation.

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%, with kind, dry_run and share_id all documented inline (including the dry_run default note and the list_shares pointer), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter meaning — notably it never mentions that kind selects the share protocol.

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?

Specific verb ('Delete') plus the exact resource type ('SMB or NFS share'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling deleters like delete_dataset, delete_snapshot and delete_app. It does not name create_share as the inverse operation or clarify scope, but the action is unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives, and critically nothing about the dry_run default of True — an agent reading only the description would not know that calling this tool as-is performs a preview rather than an actual deletion. Usage must be inferred entirely from the schema.

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