port_group_removeRemove specific ports from a LibreNMS port group by supplying the port group ID and the port IDs to remove.
Remove ports from a port group in LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Port IDs to remove. Format: {"port_ids": [1, 2, 3]} | |
| port_group_id | Yes | Port group ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action. It does not mention what happens for missing port IDs, whether removal is idempotent, what response to expect, or any prerequisite conditions. It merely restates the mutation.
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 filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.
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?
The schema and output schema cover invocation details, and the description states the core action. However, for a state-changing operation it leaves behavioral expectations and usage boundaries unstated, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
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 parameters are already documented, including the expected payload format for port IDs. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'Remove ports from a port group', and names the system (LibreNMS). It clearly communicates the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like port_group_assign or port_group_add.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus related alternatives. With siblings such as port_group_assign, port_group_add, and port_group_list_ports present, the agent is left to infer the appropriate selection without any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.