Delete a device and all of its links from a Cisco Packet Tracer network using its device name. Use this to clear nodes and connections from the topology.
Delete a device and all of its links from the network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Device name as shown by `list_devices`. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| removed | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the operation cascades to all links attached to the device, which is a side effect an agent would not infer from the name alone. It still omits reversibility/confirmation expectations.
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 carrying the verb, the resource, and the cascade side effect with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing important buried.
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 destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it conveys purpose and the cascading link removal. The only gap is the absence of any note on confirmability, permission needs, or whether a deleted device can be restored.
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% and there is only one parameter, whose schema description already explains the format and points at list_devices as the source of valid values. The description adds nothing to parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (device), and adds the important scope detail that all of the device's links are removed too. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like remove_module, remove_location, remove_note, and remove_drawing, which operate on different resources.
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 destructive 'delete' verb implies when it would be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g. disconnect vs. remove, or rename_device for non-destructive edits) and no stated preconditions such as needing a valid device name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.