disable_clientDisable a WireGuard client to immediately block its network access while retaining its configuration for future re-enabling.
Disable a WireGuard client. The client keeps its configuration but can no longer connect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | Numeric ID of the client (see list_clients) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / clientId / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With idempotentHint annotation present, the description adds value by detailing the non-destructive nature ('keeps its configuration') and the effect ('can no longer connect'), going beyond the annotation. It omits active connection handling but remains sufficient given the annotation coverage.
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?
Two sentences, direct and free of fluff. The purpose and key behavioral constraint are front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.
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?
Simple one-parameter tool with good schema and annotation coverage. Description covers purpose, effect, and non-destructive behavior; no output schema exists. Adequate for tool selection and 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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters, with clientId described as 'Numeric ID of the client (see list_clients).' The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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?
Description states 'Disable a WireGuard client' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the client 'keeps its configuration but can no longer connect,' distinguishing it from delete_client and clearly opposing enable_client.
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?
Provides clear context: it disables access while preserving configuration, implying a temporary revocation use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_client or enable_client, so exclusions are implicit rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.