Permanently remove a connection credential from OpenWISP by its UUID or ID, keeping device authentication records accurate and up to date.
[Category: Devices & Controller] Delete a connection credential. (HTTP DELETE /api/v1/connection/credential/{id}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Credential UUID or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms this is a destructive DELETE but says nothing about irreversibility, auth/permission requirements, or side effects on connections or devices that use the credential — significant omissions for a delete operation.
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?
Front-loaded and efficient — the action and resource come first, followed by the endpoint for reference. The category prefix is boilerplate but not disruptive.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose irreversibility, permission needs, and downstream effects on connections. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed about a destructive 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?
The single id parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or lookup detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (connection credential), plus the underlying HTTP endpoint, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent credential tools, but the verb+resource pairing is clear enough to identify it.
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 delete a credential versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about consequences or required permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.