remove_dhcp_hostDeletes a static DHCP reservation by MAC address on a Keenetic router. Runs as a dry run by default; re-create the reservation with set_dhcp_host if needed.
Delete a static DHCP reservation by MAC. dry_run is TRUE by default. Re-create with set_dhcp_host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mac | Yes | MAC address | |
| dry_run | No | Default true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description nevertheless adds two pieces of behavior not in the annotations: that dry_run defaults to true (a partial-deletion guard) and that the removal is not self-reversible, requiring re-creation via set_dhcp_host.
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?
Three terse sentences with zero filler, and the operation-plus-identifier is front-loaded before the safety default and the alternative tool. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it safely: the identifier, the dry-run default, and the recovery path. Only minor gaps remain, such as what a dry-run response 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%, so both parameters are already documented with types. The description only restates that mac identifies the reservation and that dry_run defaults to true, adding no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema's own 'Default true' note. Baseline 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?
Specific verb (Delete) plus resource (static DHCP reservation) and the selector (by MAC) in the first clause. It also disambiguates from the sibling set_dhcp_host by framing that tool as the counterpart operation, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.
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 closing sentence 'Re-create with set_dhcp_host' tells the agent the alternative to reach for when the goal is creation rather than removal, and the dry_run note signals the default usage mode. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when removal is inappropriate, but the routing guidance is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.