MetaMCP Admin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a destructive operation, it fails to specify that deletion is permanent and irreversible, whether it affects active requests, or what error occurs if the UUID is invalid.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy or wasted words. However, while structurally concise, it is substantively under-specified for a destructive operation (which penalizes other dimensions, not conciseness itself).

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and unspecified consequences (e.g., immediate revocation vs. scheduled deletion), the description is incomplete. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter docs but fails to explain the deletion semantics.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (both 'uuid' and 'instance' are documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, syntax constraints, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the basic action (delete) and resource (API key), making it minimally viable. However, it is largely tautological (restating the tool name 'delete_api_key') and provides no distinguishing scope compared to sibling tools like delete_server or delete_endpoint.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., that the UUID must be obtained via list_api_keys first) or warn against accidental deletion when temporary disabling might be preferred.

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