Remove a product import. Money is integer minor units (cents). Calling this changes nothing: it returns a preview of what would change and a confirmation link. Only the merchant, on that page, can make it happen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| import | Yes | The import's name or id, as imports.list gives them. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait that annotations alone cannot convey: the call has no destructive effect, returning only a preview and a confirmation link, with the actual change gated behind a merchant action on that page. This directly explains and reinforces destructiveHint=false rather than contradicting it.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose and the critical 'changes nothing' clarification in efficient sentences. The currency/units sentence is dead weight here — this tool accepts no monetary parameter — so it slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: it explains that the response is a preview plus confirmation link, which is exactly what an agent needs to not treat this as a real deletion. It could note what happens after merchant confirmation, but nothing critical is missing.
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 the single 'import' parameter is fully documented in the schema (name or id from imports.list), so the description needn't add anything. The 'money is integer minor units' sentence is irrelevant to this one-param tool and adds noise rather than meaning.
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 ('Remove a product import') that clearly distinguishes it from imports_list, imports_create, imports_run, and imports_inspect. An agent can place it precisely within the imports_* family 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is the starting point of a two-step removal flow, which is useful context, but it never states when to reach for this over imports_update or when deletion is inappropriate. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
