TrueNAS MCP

Delete Snapshot

delete_snapshot

Delete a ZFS snapshot by name; preview with dry_run default true, set false to permanently remove it.

Instructions

Delete a ZFS snapshot.

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_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Full snapshot name, e.g. "tank/data@auto-2026-08-20".
`dry_run`	No	Preview only (default True); set False to delete.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description never states that the deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens to the snapshot's data — significant gaps for a destructive 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 no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness edges into under-specification for a destructive operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema is rich (100% coverage, output schema present), which relieves some burden. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations, the description should still clarify the permanent/irreversible nature and the safety-preview default; those safety-relevant behaviors are left entirely to the schema.

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 both the 'name' format (with example) and the 'dry_run' default/semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('ZFS snapshot'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_snapshot or delete_dataset, but the name and verb make the operation clear.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no note that the schema's dry_run defaults to True (preview only). The agent must infer all usage conditions from the schema alone.

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