Remove a subnet and all its IP addresses from phpIPAM by providing the subnet ID.
Delete a subnet (WARNING: This will delete all IP addresses in the subnet).
Args: subnet_id: ID of the subnet to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subnet_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes a prominent warning that deleting a subnet deletes all IP addresses, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose permissions required, reversibility, or error behavior. Since no annotations exist, this warning carries much of the behavioral burden but is incomplete.
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 two sentences plus a three-line Args block. It front-loads the core action and warning, with no wasted words. The structure is clear, scannable, and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential action and the most important side effect. It does not explain preconditions or error handling, but the destructive cascade is prominently disclosed, making it sufficient for basic invocation.
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 Args section restates the schema parameter with a minimal gloss: 'ID of the subnet to delete.' With schema description coverage at 0%, this adds a little clarity but no format, lookup guidance, or constraints beyond what the parameter title implies. It barely compensates for the schema's lack of description.
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 states 'Delete a subnet' with a clear verb and resource, and the warning clarifies the scope by noting it deletes all IP addresses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_ip_address and update_subnet.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions, scenarios that warrant deletion, or why an agent should choose this over update_subnet or other related tools. The warning implies caution but does not offer decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.