ipcam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete a camera and its files

delete_camera

Destructive

Delete an IP camera and its snapshots, recordings, and baselines, or clean up leftover files. User approval is required; without form support, nothing is deleted and manual steps are provided.

Instructions

Delete a camera and all its snapshots, recordings and baselines, or the leftover files of a removed camera with that name. The user approves in a form that lists what will be deleted; you cannot approve it. Without form support nothing is deleted and the result says how to do it by hand.

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_camera"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (snapshots, recordings, baselines), discloses the human-approval gate, states that the agent cannot self-approve, and explains that nothing is deleted without form support and the response tells you how to do it manually. That is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before triggering an irreversible operation.

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?

Three short sentences, with the destructive scope front-loaded and the approval caveat immediately after. Slightly awkward line breaks in the source don't hurt comprehension, and no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be described, and the description still adds the one return detail that matters (the manual-workaround message). Combined with rich annotations and a single required param, the definition covers what an agent needs; only the name-matching semantics remain thin.

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 0% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It clarifies that the name may refer either to a live camera or to the leftover files of a removed camera, which is useful, but it says nothing about format, case sensitivity, or how ambiguity between the two cases is resolved.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a camera') and enumerates the scope of what goes with it (snapshots, recordings, baselines), plus a second mode for cleaning up leftover files of an already-removed camera. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling remove_camera, though the 'leftover files of a removed camera' phrasing implies the split.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear conditions for both modes: delete an existing camera and its data, or purge orphaned files by name. It also states the operational precondition (user must approve in a form) and the fallback when forms aren't supported. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to remove_camera as the non-destructive alternative.

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