disconnect_mcp_server_connection

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the action 'immediately ends that connection but does not revoke future access,' clarifying the scope of destructiveness. It also explains key derivation for user keys, supplementing the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core action, scope/alternative, and parameter guidance plus a best-practice tip. No redundancy, well front-loaded.

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 three parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, exclusions, auth requirements, and a pre-check suggestion. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: 'Provide user_id with service keys (user keys derive it), and workspace_id with organisation admin keys.' This explains the conditional necessity of optional parameters, going beyond the static schema descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Disconnect one user's active session from a Portkey-managed MCP server.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool update_mcp_server_user_access, which is for removing access rather than just ending an active session.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'use update_mcp_server_user_access when access itself should be removed' and 'Inspect list_mcp_server_connections first when the target is uncertain.' It also specifies key-type-dependent parameter usage, making it clear when to provide user_id vs workspace_id.

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