remove_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important compound effect that the server is both disconnected at runtime and deleted from config (i.e., a persistent, likely irreversible mutation). However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the config change is recoverable, or what happens to in-flight sessions on that server.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the destructive effect ('remove from config') is placed at the end where it still lands. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of omitting necessary detail rather than being elegantly concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is underspecified: no permission or precondition requirements, no irreversibility warning, and no error behavior for a name that isn't configured.

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 0% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It refers only to 'an MCP server' without clarifying that name is the server identifier, whether it must match a configured server exactly, or what an unknown name does.

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?

States a specific compound action (disconnect + remove from config) on a specific resource type (MCP server). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling add_mcp_server, though the description never names that sibling explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when removal is warranted versus simply leaving a server disconnected. An agent must infer everything from the verb alone.

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