ipcam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove a camera from the config

remove_camera

Destructive

Remove a camera from the configuration without deleting its snapshots or recordings, so you can retire it while preserving stored media.

Instructions

Remove a camera from the configuration. Never deletes snapshots or recordings (delete_camera does, after the user approves).

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": "remove_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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial scope of that destruction: only the config entry is removed, never snapshots or recordings. That clarification of blast radius is exactly the value-add expected when annotations are present. It does not contradict destructiveHint=true, since removing a config entry is still a destructive mutation of state.

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 sentences, zero redundant wording, with the primary action stated first and the safety clarification immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers both what is removed and what is preserved plus the sibling that handles full deletion. Only the semantics of the name parameter remain unaddressed.

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?

The single required parameter (name) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain that it identifies the camera to remove or what form the name takes. For one obvious identifier this is a modest gap rather than a blocking one, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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 (remove) and resource (camera from configuration), and explicitly contrasts itself with the delete_camera sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Points to the alternative (delete_camera) and the condition selecting it: discarding snapshots/recordings and requiring user approval. That is clear routing guidance, though it stops short of an explicit "use this when..." statement for the camera-only config case.

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