ipcam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove a PTZ preset

ptz_remove_preset

Destructive

Delete a saved PTZ preset from an IP camera by name or token to remove an unwanted viewing position; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a saved preset by name or token. This cannot be undone.

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": {
      "camera": "<camera>",
      "preset": "<preset>"
    },
    "name": "ptz_remove_preset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`camera`	Yes
`preset`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's "cannot be undone" largely restates the safety profile, though it does make the irreversibility explicit in prose. It omits what happens when the preset or camera does not exist and whether the operation is scoped per camera.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the destructive consequence immediately follows the action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive mutation the description leaves the camera parameter, identifier formats, and failure behavior unaddressed. Against 0% schema coverage this is not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are two required parameters, yet the description only addresses the preset identifier ("by name or token") and never mentions the required camera parameter or what form a name versus a token takes. It only partially compensates for the documentation gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a saved preset") and names the identifiers used, which cleanly separates it from siblings such as ptz_save_preset, ptz_goto_preset, and ptz_list_presets.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools (e.g. listing presets first to confirm the right one). The only implicit guidance is the irreversibility warning.

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