disable_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only provides a vague return format ('Dictionary with success status and server removal details') and does not clarify whether the action is reversible, what happens if the server is already disabled, or any side effects. The term 'removal details' is ambiguous and could mislead.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by organized Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, parameter, and return shape. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and the ambiguity around 'removal' leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full effect. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail, but the description still does not fully contextualize the 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 input schema has one required parameter with no description. The description compensates by explaining server_name as the name of the server to disable and gives concrete examples ('github', 'slack', 'notion'), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a clear action ('Disable') and a specific resource ('a specific Docker MCP server by name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like enable_server and list_enabled_servers.

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: you disable a server by name, likely when you want to turn off a currently enabled server. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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