gateway.disconnect_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. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool refuses to disconnect if there are pending requests unless force=true is set, which cancels them. This goes beyond a simple statement of action and informs the agent of side effects. It omits other details like reversibility, but the disclosed behavior is significant.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the default refusal condition, and the force override. It does not explain what happens after disconnect (e.g., how to reconnect) but that may be implied by sibling tools. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context for the force parameter by explaining the default refusal behavior and that setting force=true cancels pending requests. This enriches the schema's default value without redundancy.

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 opens with 'Disconnect a running downstream MCP server' – a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies 'without changing persistent config', which distinguishes it from configuration-changing tools and gives a precise scope of action.

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 clear operational context: it refuses by default when pending requests exist and explains when to use force=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the persistent-config qualification helps differentiate from sibling tools like update_server or connect_server.

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