remove_unified_connectionDelete a connection by its ID from the connected account. Requires id. Permanently removes the record and cannot be undone. To fetch a single connection by its ID, use get_unified_connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the connection to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / fieldsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Comma-separated list of fields to include in the response",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, adding meaningful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also mentions 'from the connected account', giving scope. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint is not contradicted). The permanence disclosure is valuable but the description could also mention the idempotent nature, though that is already in annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternative is stated efficiently. Every word contributes.
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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the destructive side effect and routes to the correct sibling. It doesn't detail error handling or idempotency, but those are minor given the annotations and 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', which is fully documented. The description simply repeats that 'id' is required, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 verb (delete) and resource (connection), specifies that it operates by ID, and explicitly distinguishes it from the get_unified_connection sibling. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs.
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 explicitly instructs to use this tool for deletion and names the alternative (get_unified_connection) for fetching a connection by ID. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it doesn't contrast with other remove_* tools, it sufficiently differentiates from the most relevant sibling.
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.