delete_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 and does well by disclosing that the action cannot be undone, advising confirmation, and noting the required privilege. This gives the agent essential behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and object; the second conveys critical warnings. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter (handle), irreversibility, and permission requirements. It does not elaborate on return values or edge cases, but these are less critical for a delete operation.

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 schema has 0% coverage and only one property, 'handle.' The description mentions 'by handle,' which tells the agent what the parameter is used for, but this largely restates the property name and adds no format or constraint details. It is adequate but not rich.

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 starts with 'Delete an AI Hub MCP server by handle,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mcp_server or renew_mcp_server_token. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to delete a server) and explicitly states the prerequisites: having the handle and possessing the MCP privilege. It also warns to confirm first because the action is irreversible. It does not name alternative tools, but for a delete action the context is clear.

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