Deletes a location and all of its child locations from Arista CV-CUE. Use it to remove obsolete site hierarchies; the action is irreversible and requires confirm=true.
Delete a location AND all of its child locations. Irreversible. Requires CVCUE_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to proceed | |
| location_id | Yes | Location id to delete — its child locations are deleted too |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that deletion cascades to children, that it is irreversible, and that two preconditions must hold. It stops short of stating what happens to APs or clients assigned to the location, or what the response contains.
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 terse sentences, with the destructive scope and irreversibility front-loaded before the prerequisites. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: cascade behavior, irreversibility, and required flags. The remaining gap is what happens to dependent objects (APs, clients) and what the call returns.
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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented there, including the same cascade note for location_id and the 'must be true' constraint for confirm. The description merely echoes the confirm requirement rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so this is baseline.
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 and resource ('Delete a location') and immediately clarifies the blast radius ('AND all of its child locations'), which is exactly the kind of scope detail an agent needs before choosing a destructive tool. It is clearly distinguishable from cvcue_delete_ssid and cvcue_get_location.
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?
The description gives activation prerequisites (CVCUE_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true) that tell the agent when the call can succeed, but it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as cvcue_get_location or cvcue_list_locations, and no advice on verifying the target first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.