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?
Annotations say destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly says it 'delete[s] the credential' and 'for Google it is also revoked at Google,' indicating irreversible destructive behavior. This is a direct contradiction, so the score is 1.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value—including idempotency and the need for founder confirmation. No waste.
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?
The description covers purpose, idempotency, and consequences, which is fairly complete for a one-parameter tool, but the contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation makes the overall information misleading and incomplete regarding safety.
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 covers the single parameter with a description of allowed values, and the tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Disconnect a growth data source or distribution channel') and the additional detail of credential deletion, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_connection or 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?
It provides implicit guidance by noting the impact ('narrows what the growth engine can measure') and instructing to 'confirm with the founder first,' but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
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 follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.