Delete a device connection in OpenWISP using device ID and connection ID to remove it from the controller.
[Category: Devices & Controller] Delete a device connection. (HTTP DELETE /api/v1/controller/device/{device_id}/connection/{connection_id}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | Yes | Device UUID or ID | |
| connection_id | Yes | Connection 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 reveals the HTTP DELETE operation, but doesn't state irreversibility, permission requirements, or downstream effects (e.g., what happens to the connection record). A single sentence with an endpoint is insufficient for a destructive 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?
A single sentence with the category tag and endpoint is efficient and front-loaded. No wasted words, though the endpoint adds little beyond what the name conveys.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose reversibility, auth requirements, and side effects. It only states what the tool does, leaving significant gaps 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 100%, with both device_id and connection_id clearly documented as UUID or ID. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 (a device connection) with the exact API endpoint, making scope unambiguous. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like openwisp_update_device_connection or openwisp_delete_device.
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 tool versus alternatives such as openwisp_update_device_connection or delete/update of the parent device. The name implies deletion, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.