CloudForge 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. It discloses the Owner restriction (important behavioral constraint) and the ID source requirement, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the action is reversible, confirmation prompts, or what happens to the member's resources. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 tightly focused sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action and key restriction, the second provides essential implementation guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information (what it does and the Owner restriction) is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and a key restriction, but lacks information about permissions, reversibility, confirmation requirements, and expected response format. Given the tool's potential impact, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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% (the single parameter has a clear description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact source for obtaining the parameter value ('from cloudforge_list_members'), which provides practical implementation guidance beyond the schema's type/format documentation.

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 ('Remove a member') and target resource ('from the organisation'), distinguishing it from siblings like cloudforge_list_members (which lists members) and cloudforge_invite_member (which adds members). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 about when NOT to use it ('Cannot remove the Owner') and references a sibling tool for obtaining required data ('Pass the member's user ID from cloudforge_list_members'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like cloudforge_cancel_invitation for pending invitations or specify prerequisites beyond the ID source.

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