Removes a WireGuard peer from a MikroTik interface using its public key or comment. Deletes the peer safely with dry-run preview and automatic rollback.
Remove a WireGuard peer, identified by its public key or comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | router | |
| peer | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| interface | Yes | ||
| rollback_minutes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that a peer is removed but does not disclose that dry_run defaults to true, that rollback_minutes defaults to 5, or that actual deletion likely requires dry_run=false. The destructive nature is implied but safety, reversibility, and side effects are unexplained.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is not verbose, but its extreme brevity leaves important invocation details unstated. The issue is under-specification rather than excessive length.
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. However, the input schema has no field descriptions and the description only covers one of five parameters. For a destructive operation with dry-run and rollback defaults, the definition is incomplete for safe invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that 'peer' can be a public key or comment. It does not explain the required 'interface' parameter, the 'name' default, the 'dry_run' safety behavior, or the 'rollback_minutes' rollback mechanism.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: remove a WireGuard peer. It also clarifies the peer identifier can be either a public key or comment. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like wireguard_add_peer and wireguard_update_peer, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
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 about when to use this tool versus wireguard_update_peer or other WireGuard management tools. It also does not mention prerequisites, required context, or when removal should be avoided. Usage is implied only by the verb 'remove'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.