ENSP-MCP AI

by dawnight0x

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Unregister Device

unregister_device

Remove a registered eNSP device by name from ENSP-MCP AI to clear it from active topology management.

Instructions

Remove a registered eNSP device.

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": "unregister_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Device name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Remove" implies a destructive mutation, but it never states whether the removal is reversible, whether it deletes stored configuration or only the registration entry, or what happens if the name does not exist.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a consequence of under-specification.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the effect of removal and any error conditions. As written it gives the agent nothing beyond the name.

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 100%, so the single "name" parameter is already documented in the schema, including its validation pattern. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that baseline.

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?

Specific verb ("Remove") plus specific resource ("a registered eNSP device"), which is clearly the inverse of the sibling register_device. It does not explicitly name that sibling or the list_devices alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than register_device, list_devices, or sync_topology_devices, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the device must be reachable or already present). The agent must infer the trigger condition from the name alone.

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