delete_ip_groupDelete an IP address group from an iKuai router by specifying its group ID, with optional IP type (default IPv4). Use it to remove obsolete or unwanted address groups from firewall or routing rules.
删除 IP 地址分组
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip_type | No | v4 | |
| group_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, whether groups referenced by ACL/routing rules can be deleted, or what happens to dependent references. Only the implicit 'delete' verb signals mutation.
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 six-character sentence with no padding and the action front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any useful content.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a no-annotation destructive tool with 0% parameter coverage the description leaves critical gaps: preconditions, side effects on referencing rules, and how to identify the target group.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Neither group_id (how to obtain it, integer ID semantics) nor ip_type (the v4 default and what other values exist) is clarified anywhere.
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?
Clear verb+resource pair ('删除 IP 地址分组') that names exactly what is removed, and it is distinguishable from list_ip_groups/add_ip_group. It offers no differentiation against adjacent siblings like delete_mac_group or an explicit note on which group namespace is affected.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no warning that this is a destructive call, and no pointer to list_ip_groups for discovering valid group_id values. The agent must infer all of this 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.