BotUyo MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that removal is automatic for multi-instance tools ('también la remueve de enabledTools automáticamente'), which adds context beyond the basic 'remove' action. However, it doesn't cover critical behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, permission requirements, side effects on agent functionality, or error handling, leaving significant gaps 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 two concise sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a clarifying detail about multi-instance handling. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, safety warnings, or integration with sibling tools like 'update_enabled_tools'. For a tool that removes configuration, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it reliably.

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%, with both parameters ('agentId', 'toolName') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 verb ('Elimina' - removes) and resource ('configuración de un tool' - tool configuration), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'configure_agent_tool' (which likely adds/modifies) and 'get_tool_config' (which reads). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_agent' or other deletion tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 by mentioning multi-instance handling ('Si es multi-instance...'), suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'delete_agent' or 'update_enabled_tools', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, making it only implied rather than explicit.

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