NHN Server MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '종료합니다' (disconnect/terminate) implies a destructive action, the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects other operations, or what happens after disconnection. For a potentially disruptive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 potentially destructive operation (disconnecting a gateway connection) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Gateway 연결' refers to specifically, what the consequences of disconnection are, whether there are dependencies, or what verification/confirmation might be needed. Given the complexity and risk profile, more context would be appropriate.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 ('종료합니다' - disconnect/terminate) and the target resource ('Gateway 연결' - Gateway connection), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'connection_status' or 'exec', which would require more specific language about what makes this tool unique.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connection_status' (which might check connection state) or 'exec' (which might execute commands on the server). There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for disconnecting versus other operations.

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