connector_removeDisconnect a connector. Pass slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Connector slug to disconnect. | |
| type | No | Type of connector (mcp or oauth). Default: mcp. | |
| billing | No | Scope: "personal" (default), "team" (auto-resolves), a team slug, or "team:<id>". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive, non-readonly, idempotent behavior, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what gets disconnected, whether credentials are revoked, or reversibility. It simply restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding of consequences.
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 extremely concise, with no filler or repetition. 'Disconnect a connector. Pass slug.' front-loads the operation and the key required argument, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the effects of disconnecting, how the type or billing scopes influence the operation, or how the result is reported. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context needed for confident invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Pass slug' and adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation for slug, type, or billing.
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 uses the specific verb 'Disconnect' with the resource 'connector', which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like connector_add, connector_list, and connector_permissions. The instruction to pass the slug further narrows the action without ambiguity.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing connector or how to discover the slug. Usage is only implied by the operation name, not explicitly stated.
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.
Tools are grouped by clear resource prefixes (account_, brain_, connector_, credential_, file_, job_, key_), and most actions have distinct purposes. A few boundaries overlap—brain_admin's lint action duplicates brain_lint, and account_preferences/setup/switch could momentarily confuse—but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant pattern is resource_verb for actions (file_read, job_cancel, key_create) and resource_noun for state views (credits_balance, brain_settings, account_preferences), which is readable. However, exceptions like discover, use_tool, top_up_credits, and feedback_request_tool break the pattern, and the set is not consistently verb_noun.
47 tools is well beyond the comfortable range; even though prefixes organize them, the agent faces a large selection surface with many narrowly scoped tools. A more consolidated set with action-based subcommands would be easier to navigate.
Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account setup and billing, connector and credential management, file CRUD, job polling, key lifecycle, brain knowledge management, and catalogue discovery/execution. Gaps are minor—outfit/persona/product/scene are list-only, connectors lack an update operation, and there is no explicit single-page brain get—but agents can generally work around them.