delete_mcp_server

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's extra value is disclosing consequences: the operation "cannot be undone" and immediately cuts off dependent users and workflows. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It stops short of covering permissions or what happens to related resources.

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 sentences with zero padding. The destructive nature is front-loaded, and the warning about disconnecting users follows immediately.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential risk context and irreversibility. It could say more about side effects on related resources (e.g., capabilities, access entries), but nothing critical is missing.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage: "The MCP server ID or slug to delete"). The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or how to obtain it, so the base level of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Delete an MCP server." That is unambiguous and matches the tool name. However, it doesn't distinguish this from close siblings like disconnect_mcp_server_connection or delete_mcp_integration, so the agent has to infer the boundary.

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?

"Use with caution, as it will immediately disconnect any users or workflows depending on it" gives a risk-based precondition, which implies when not to use it. But it never names an alternative (e.g., disconnect vs. delete) or states explicit when-to-use criteria, so the guidance is implied rather than directive.

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