Drop active VPN connections by user ID or IP address across all or selected nodes.
Drop active connections by user IDs or IP addresses on all or specific nodes (async, 202)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userIds | No | Drop connections of these user numeric IDs | |
| nodeUuids | No | Limit to these node UUIDs (omit = all connected nodes) | |
| ipAddresses | No | Drop connections from these IP addresses |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is asynchronous and returns HTTP 202, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention the destructive nature (dropping active connections can disrupt users), any required permissions, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to subsequently reconnecting users. For a potentially disruptive mutation, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that includes the action, targets, scope, and async behavior with '202'. Every piece adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic operation, but ambiguity remains about whether userIds and ipAddresses are combined or exclusive, and whether at least one is required. The async/202 note is present, but for a destructive tool it could mention that this is a forceful action with potential user impact. Overall, it is adequate but missing a few edge-case specifics.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (userIds, nodeUuids, ipAddresses) already have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, such as the relationship between userIds and ipAddresses (AND/OR), or that at least one must be provided. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter meanings and the description adds marginal value.
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 a clear verb ('Drop'), a specific resource ('active connections'), and the two criteria (user IDs or IP addresses) plus scope (all or specific nodes). It distinguishes itself from sibling fetch and geocheck tools, so an agent can immediately tell this is a termination action.
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 implies its use case (when you need to force-disconnect users) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. The sibling list contains fetch and result-retrieval tools, which are clearly different from 'drop', but the description itself does not guide the agent in choosing between them or warn about destructive consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.