fios-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_dhcp_reservation

Destructive

Removes a DHCP reservation by MAC address using a preview/confirm workflow, so you can verify the change before it is applied.

Instructions

Remove the reservation for a MAC. Two-phase.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mac": "<mac>"
    },
    "name": "delete_dhcp_reservation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mac`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`expected_etag`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare this as destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral hint with 'Two-phase,' suggesting confirmation or preview semantics, but it never explains what the phases are, what gets removed, or what confirm and expected_etag do.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action, with no padding. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though 'Two-phase' is too cryptic to fully earn its place without elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive mutation with three parameters, incomplete schema descriptions, and a confirm/etag workflow. The description should explain the two-phase behavior and parameter roles, but it leaves an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently despite having an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only identifies the mac parameter indirectly; it does not explain confirm, expected_etag, or their required roles in the 'two-phase' flow.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the reservation for a MAC.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from add_dhcp_reservation and list_dhcp_reservations, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_dhcp_reservations or add_dhcp_reservation, nor any stated prerequisites. 'Two-phase' hints at a workflow but does not explain when or how to invoke the second phase, when to set confirm, or when expected_etag is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.