mcporter_deactivate_mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'frees context' as a high-level effect, but does not explain side effects such as impact on active sessions, permissions required, or the role of the timeout_ms parameter. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, includes a parameter explanation, and provides a concrete example. It earns high marks for brevity, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the effect from parameter details.

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 tool with an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks key context such as the timeout parameter's function, prerequisites, or consequences of deactivation. The inclusion of sibling tools suggests a management workflow, but this description does not fully position the tool within that workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter and gives an example, but it completely omits the 'timeout_ms' parameter, leaving its purpose and behavior undocumented. This is a significant gap.

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 ('deactivate MCP') and the resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like activate_mcp by the verb 'deactivate'. However, it adds the qualifier 'large' which is somewhat ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 implies usage ('to free context') and provides an example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like activate_mcp or list_servers. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are given.

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