img-src 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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the action is permanent ('permanently removes'), affects all paths, and makes the image inaccessible via CDN URLs. However, it does not cover potential errors, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core action and efficiently uses three sentences to convey permanence, scope, and consequences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, permanence, and accessibility impact, but lacks details on error handling or response format, which could be beneficial for an agent.

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 100%, with the schema documenting the 'id' parameter as a 16-character hash prefix. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating permanence but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('an image by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_image', 'list_images', or 'upload_image'. It specifies the exact operation rather than being vague or tautological.

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 usage by stating it deletes an image by ID, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like confirming deletion or alternatives for non-destructive actions). It provides basic context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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