Remove a stored Ozon cabinet by name. If the removed cabinet was active, another automatically becomes active to keep your connection running.
Delete a stored cabinet. If it was active, another becomes active.
Args: name: the cabinet to remove.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: deleting an active cabinet triggers automatic activation of another cabinet. This is a genuine side-effect disclosure, though it remains slightly vague about which cabinet is selected.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence, the active-cabinet side effect second, and a clearly formatted Args section. No sentence is wasted.
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 the low complexity (one required string parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the essential behavior and the key side effect. The only minor gap is the unspecified fallback selection behavior when the active cabinet is removed.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema only says 'name' is a string. The description compensates by defining the parameter semantically: 'name: the cabinet to remove.' This is sufficient for a single simple parameter, though it could note that the name likely must match an existing cabinet from list_cabinets.
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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('stored cabinet'), and adds a distinctive behavioral detail ('If it was active, another becomes active') that sets it apart from the sibling cabinet tools like list/add/set_key/use. An agent can tell exactly what operation this performs.
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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as ozon_perf_use_cabinet or ozon_perf_add_cabinet. It does not mention that the cabinet name should come from list_cabinets, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.