delete_vpn_accountDelete a VPN client account by specifying the VPN type and user ID to remove its configuration from an iKuai router.
删除 VPN 客户端配置
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| vpn_type | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only delivers the bare "delete" verb. It does not disclose the destructive/irreversible nature, permission requirements, whether the delete cascades (sessions, configs), or any confirmation step. The verb implies mutation, but nothing beyond that is conveyed.
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 short sentence is not concise here—it is under-specified. Brevity is achieved by omitting required information rather than by front-loading it, and the one sentence still leaves the target object ambiguous.
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?
This is a destructive two-required-parameter tool with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no usage guidance. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but everything else an agent needs to call this safely and correctly is missing.
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 both required parameters (user_id, vpn_type) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions neither parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; vpn_type accepts an unconstrained string with no enum or examples 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?
"删除 VPN 客户端配置" states a verb (删除) and a resource (VPN 客户端配置), which is minimally viable. However, the tool name says "account" while the description says "client configuration", and the sibling set contains both list_vpn_accounts/add_vpn_account and list_vpn_clients, so the agent cannot tell which object is actually removed. No differentiation from siblings is offered.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_vpn_accounts, add_vpn_account, or the other delete_* siblings. No prerequisites, no confirmation semantics, and no mention of what a caller must know before invoking it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.