Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vobiz MCP Server

Vobiz MCP Server

Official
by vobiz-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete trunk IP ACL entry

delete_ip_acl_entry
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an IP ACL entry from a Vobiz account to stop trusting SIP traffic from that address or range; trunks keep working with other authentication.

Instructions

Remove an IP ACL entry from this Vobiz account; this reverses add_ip_acl_entry and cannot be undone. SIP traffic from that address or range is no longer trusted and needs digest credentials; the change can take a little time to reach the SIP edge. Trunks that referenced the entry keep working with their other authentication. An unknown ip_acl_id raises not_found. Gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYesMust be true, set only after the user explicitly approved: deleting this IP ACL entry.
ip_acl_idYesIP ACL entry UUID: the id from list_ip_acl_entries or add_ip_acl_entry. Unknown ids raise not_found.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNoTrue on success. On a failure the result is isError with ok: false plus `error` (kind), `message`, `retryable` and sometimes `http_status`.
deletedNo
ip_acl_idNoThe entry that was deleted.
http_statusNoHTTP status Vobiz answered with.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / ip_acl_id / description
      Added value: +"IP ACL entry UUID: the id from list_ip_acl_entries or add_ip_acl_entry. Unknown ids raise not_found."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "http_status": {
+      "description": "HTTP status Vobiz answered with.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "ip_acl_id": {
+      "description": "The entry that was deleted.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "True on success. On a failure the result is isError with ok: false plus `error` (kind), `message`, `retryable` and sometimes `http_status`.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the deletion 'cannot be undone', affected SIP traffic loses trust and needs digest credentials, the change is eventually consistent at the SIP edge, and unrelated auth on referencing trunks is preserved. It also discloses the not_found error and the environment gate.

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?

Front-loads the core action and consequence in the first clause, and every subsequent clause carries distinct information (irreversibility, SIP impact, propagation, trunk behavior, error, gating). It is dense and semi-colon heavy but not padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the safety profile, the environment gate, the confirm requirement, the error case, and the eventual-consistency caveat — everything an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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, including the not_found behavior on ip_acl_id and the confirm approval semantics. The description reinforces but does not extend the schema's parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (IP ACL entry) scoped to 'this Vobiz account', and anchors it against a named sibling by noting it 'reverses add_ip_acl_entry'. An agent can distinguish it from add_ip_acl_entry and update_ip_acl_entry without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit prerequisites: gated by VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true, and frames it as the inverse of add_ip_acl_entry. It does not explicitly contrast against update_ip_acl_entry or state when not to delete, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools