Remove a specific DHCP reservation from a FortiGate firewall's DHCP server using its server and reservation IDs. Useful for cleaning up unused IP allocations or resolving conflicts.
Remove a DHCP reservation by its id (see list_dhcp_servers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Reservation id | |
| vdom | No | VDOM (default: FORTIGATE_VDOM, usually root) | |
| server_id | Yes | DHCP server id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it is idempotent on a missing id, what permissions are required, or what happens to related leases. For a delete tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no wasted words. The trailing parenthetical is the only slightly loose element, but overall it is tight and scannable.
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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the key context an agent needs: permanence, error behavior on unknown ids, and permission requirements. Fully covered schema helps, but the behavioral side is thin for a delete 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%, with id, server_id, and vdom all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'by its id' and does not clarify the required server_id/vdom relationship or id format beyond what the schema already states.
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 (Remove) and resource (DHCP reservation) with the identifier ('by its id'), which cleanly separates it from add_dhcp_reservation, update_dhcp_server, and list_dhcp_leases. The parenthetical '(see list_dhcp_servers)' is a slightly imprecise pointer, since that tool lists servers rather than reservations, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The '(see list_dhcp_servers)' hint gestures at where to source the id but does not describe any selection condition. Minimal routing value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.