Disconnect a node's input or output by specifying the operator path and optionally the input or output index.
Disconnect an input and/or output of a node.
path (<class 'str'>): Operator path.
inputIndex (int | None): Disconnect this input.
outputIndex (int | None): Disconnect this output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| inputIndex | No | ||
| outputIndex | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the basic action of disconnecting an input/output; it does not disclose effects on the node graph, whether both indices can be omitted, what happens if no connection exists, or any destructive side effects. With no annotations providing safety or mutability context, this is a significant gap.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the parameter list is compact. Some inline type annotations are redundant with schema information, but there is minimal waste overall.
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?
The definition lacks important behavioral details for a mutating operation: what happens if both inputIndex and outputIndex are omitted, whether the node is modified permanently, and what the result/return value is. No annotations or output schema compensate. An agent is left to infer critical execution semantics.
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 descriptions are absent, so the tool description is the only documentation. It explains `path` as the operator path and says inputIndex/outputIndex select which input/output to disconnect, but the wording is somewhat circular and gives no guidance on defaults or combinations.
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 ('Disconnect') and the object ('an input and/or output of a node'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like conn_create and conn_get. The verb-resource pairing makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as connection_delete, conn_create, or conn_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.