toggle_flagEnable or disable a feature flag in one environment to change live evaluation immediately. Verify the environment before applying to avoid unintended changes.
Enable or disable a flag in ONE environment. Affects live evaluation immediately — double-check the environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | Yes | Flag key or id | |
| enabled | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| environment | Yes | Environment key, e.g. production |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation is complemented by the description's explicit statement that the action 'affects live evaluation immediately' and the caution to double-check the environment. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation, explaining the real-world impact and the need for care.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the action and scope, followed by a relevant safety warning. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail; every word contributes to the tool's usability.
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 4-parameter tool with a destructive annotation and no output schema, the description covers the core action, scope, immediate impact, and provides a caution. It does not discuss return values or prerequisites, but those are less critical here. The description is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.
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 only 50%, with project and enabled lacking parameter descriptions. The description adds some meaning by implying that 'enabled' is a boolean and that environment selects a single environment, but it does not explain the project parameter or the expected format for flag key/id. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.
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 a specific action ('Enable or disable') on a specific resource ('flag') with a definite scope ('ONE environment'). This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like update_flag or update_flag_environment_config, and the added impact note about live evaluation further pinpoints its purpose.
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 context through the single-environment scope and the warning to double-check the environment, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like update_flag_environment_config or flag_status, nor does it state when to use this versus an alternative. Guidance is present but only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.