mcp_servers_remove

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Remove' without explaining consequences such as irreversibility, whether the server process is stopped, or whether the configuration file is permanently deleted. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description carries the responsibility for explaining the tool's context. It fails to specify side effects, prerequisites, or what happens after removal, leaving the agent with incomplete information for a destructive operation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with clear description 'Server name to remove'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: remove an MCP server configuration. The specific verb 'Remove' and the resource 'MCP server configuration' make the action unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like mcp_servers_add, mcp_servers_stop, and mcp_servers_restart.

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 does not mention that removal is permanent or that stopping a server should be done with mcp_servers_stop, leaving the agent without context for choosing the correct operation.

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