MetaMCP Admin MCP

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. While 'Delete' implies destruction, it lacks critical safety context: irreversibility warnings, cascade effects on dependent resources, or whether the operation is atomic. For a destructive operation, this is a significant safety gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, zero redundancy or filler. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and only 2 simple parameters, the description is technically complete. However, for a destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks expected safety warnings and success/failure behavior documentation that would make it operationally complete.

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 coverage is 100% (both uuid and instance have descriptions), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (format examples, how to retrieve the UUID, or what happens if instance is omitted), but the schema adequately documents the fields.

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?

States specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'MCP server' with scope 'from a MetaMCP instance'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling delete operations (delete_api_key, delete_endpoint, delete_namespace), though the resource type is implied by the name.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_server for disabling vs deleting), no prerequisites (such as needing to check server status first), and no warnings about when deletion might fail or be inappropriate.

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