Circuitry MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect ('Ends the current MCP session'), which implies a destructive action, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what happens to active operations. This is adequate for a simple disconnect tool but misses deeper context.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and adds a helpful follow-up about reconnection in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a disconnect operation. It covers purpose, usage, and reconnection guidance, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like session cleanup or error handling.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose and usage, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 specific action ('Disconnect from Circuitry') and the resource ('current MCP session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'circuitry.connect' and 'circuitry.status'. It explicitly mentions ending the session, which is a distinct purpose compared to other tools that manage connections or check status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Ends the current MCP session') and includes a clear alternative ('Call circuitry.connect to reconnect'), helping the agent understand the context and sequence of operations without ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.