Deletes a network profile by ID in VCF Automation, removing an IaaS network configuration when it is no longer needed.
Delete network profile Delete network profile with a given id DELETE /iaas/api/network-profiles/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the network profile. (path) | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /iaas/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that — it never warns that the delete is irreversible or what happens to networks still associated with the profile, which is the missing behavioral context an agent would need.
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?
Three lines state the same fact twice and then repeat it as a REST path. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the tool name, and repetition occupies space that could have carried real guidance.
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?
For a destructive single-parameter delete whose schema and annotations are complete, minimum viable context is present. It is still incomplete in that consequences of deletion and any dependency (e.g., existing networks using the profile) are never mentioned.
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 100%, so both the id and apiVersion parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'with a given id' and adds no meaning about ID sourcing or apiVersion implications; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.
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 names a specific verb and resource (delete a network profile by id), which is clearer than the bare tool name, but the second sentence adds nothing and there is no differentiation from nearby siblings such as iaas_delete_network or iaas_update_network_profile. An agent can infer the purpose, but only barely beyond what the name already conveys.
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 guidance on when to use this instead of iaas_delete_network, iaas_update_network_profile, or the get_* siblings, and no prerequisites. There is no indication of the conditions under which deletion is appropriate or what to check first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.