Delete a specific port forwarding rule by its ID to remove unwanted or outdated network configurations from the UniFi controller.
Delete a port forwarding rule by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The _id of the rule to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Delete' makes the destructive nature of the operation clear, and 'by id' communicates the required input. But since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens on failure.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, the object, and the required identifier in an efficient, front-loaded manner.
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 simple one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and how to target the rule. Additional details about return values or error handling would be nice but are not essential for this simple operation.
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% and the 'id' parameter is already described as 'The _id of the rule to delete.' The tool description adds no further parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a port forwarding rule by id.' It clearly identifies the action and target, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_port_forward_rules, update_port_forward_rule, and delete_traffic_rule.
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?
The description implies usage: use this when you want to delete a specific port forwarding rule by its id. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives such as update_port_forward_rule or ensure_port_forward_rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.