Frihet MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that deletion is permanent and notifications stop immediately, which aligns with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. It does not contradict annotations, and while annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description enhances understanding of real-world effects like notification cessation.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with the key information ('Permanently delete a webhook by its ID') in the first clause. The bilingual repetition is efficient for clarity without redundancy, and every sentence directly supports tool understanding without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, annotations provide critical safety info (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds practical effects (permanence, notification stop). However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values or error cases, leaving a minor gap in completeness for a deletion tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description does not add further semantic details about the ID format or sourcing, so it meets the baseline of 3 by not compensating unnecessarily but also not providing extra value beyond the schema.

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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a webhook by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_client or delete_invoice by specifying the webhook resource. The bilingual format reinforces this specificity without ambiguity.

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 context by stating 'Notifications will stop immediately,' suggesting this tool is for stopping webhook notifications. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_webhook or specify prerequisites (e.g., needing the webhook ID from get_webhook or list_webhooks), leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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