Admina 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 of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool deletes a custom field configuration, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, impact on associated devices, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Delete a device custom field configuration') and adds clarifying context ('Removes a custom field definition from the organization'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise 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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success/error responses, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing to fetch IDs first). For a deletion tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with the parameter 'customFieldId' documented as 'The ID of the custom field to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('device custom field configuration'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_device_custom_field' and 'update_device_custom_field'. It specifies that it removes a custom field definition from the organization, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the customFieldId from 'get_device_custom_fields'), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_device_custom_field' for modifications instead of deletion.

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