Delete a VLAN interface from a MikroTik router to clean up network configurations. Specify the interface name to remove it directly.
Removes a VLAN interface from the MikroTik device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| device | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare (destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects on dependent configurations, or any required permissions. Since it provides no extra value beyond the annotations, the score is low.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, earning its place. However, it is perhaps too minimal, but conciseness is not heavily penalized for brevity.
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 destructive operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the device parameter, what happens if the interface doesn't exist, or whether the operation is reversible. The output schema exists, but the description should still provide more operational context.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. It fails to clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., interface name or VLAN ID) and what the optional 'device' parameter does. With no compensation from the description, parameter semantics are almost entirely unaddressed.
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 description clearly states the verb 'removes' and the specific resource 'VLAN interface', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vlan_interface or update_vlan_interface. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a VLAN interface should be removed or if there are prerequisites like the interface being disabled. It lacks any context about usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.