Disconnect a growth data source or distribution channel and delete the credential stored for it (for Google it is also revoked at Google). Idempotent: disconnecting something that was never connected changes nothing. It narrows what the growth engine can measure and where it can distribute, so confirm with the founder first. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Which connector to disconnect: ga4, gsc, gbp, linkedin or reddit. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description strongly implies a destructive action by stating it 'delete[s] the credential stored for it' and 'revoked at Google', yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The readOnlyHint=false is consistent, but the destructiveHint mismatch forces a score of 1 per rules.
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?
The description is concise (three sentences), starts with the action verb, and covers idempotency, effect, and caution. The final 'Free.' is slightly extraneous but non-hindering, keeping the overall structure effective.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, idempotency, impact on measurement, and a user confirmation requirement. The only omission is the exact return value, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema already fully describes the 'provider' parameter with allowed values. The description adds meaningful provider-specific nuance by noting that for Google the credential is also revoked, which isn't in the schema. This extra context enhances parameter understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Disconnect' with a specific resource type ('growth data source or distribution channel') and additional detail about credential deletion and Google revocation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_connection and list_connections.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to disconnect a data source or distribution channel), its effect (narrows what the growth engine can measure), and a caution to confirm with the founder first. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.
42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.
The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.