OpenFGA MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes tuples but doesn't describe what happens upon deletion (e.g., whether it's irreversible, if it affects permissions immediately, or if there are side effects like cascading changes). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a tuple deletion operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools for similar operations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or what to expect after deletion, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the tuple components (user, relation, object) interact or providing examples beyond those in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('삭제' meaning 'delete') and resource ('OpenFGA 튜플(권한 관계)' meaning 'OpenFGA tuple (permission relationship)'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openfga_tuple_write or openfga_tuple_batch_write, which handle tuple creation/modification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to delete tuples versus other operations like checking permissions (openfga_check) or reading tuples (openfga_tuple_read), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for deletion.

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