Coda 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 effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the action is permanent ('permanently delete'), irreversible ('cannot be undone'), and carries risk ('Use with caution'). This covers the essential safety and consequence information needed 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of only three short sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, warning about irreversibility, and advising caution. There is no wasted language, making it highly efficient and clear.

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 high complexity (destructive deletion) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does well by covering the permanent and irreversible nature of the action. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., impact on linked data) or success/failure responses, which would help an agent understand the full context.

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%, with the parameter 'docId' clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the document to delete'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a Coda document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like coda_get_doc (read) or coda_create_doc (create). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context for usage with 'Use with caution' and emphasizes the irreversible nature of the action. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archiving vs. deletion) or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), which prevents a perfect score.

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