Remove Server

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: it removes from a specific config file, triggers a reload, and works dynamically without requiring a restart. This fully leverages the description beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a usage note. Every sentence provides essential information without repetition or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, mechanism, and usage context. Minor omission: no mention of behavior if the server name does not exist.

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 single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, behavior if server not found). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Remove an MCP server from conductor config and disconnect it'), specifies the effect (config removal and reload), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_server or update_server.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'to dynamically remove servers without restarting Claude,' providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly contrast with alternatives, though siblings are distinct enough.

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