Removes the connection between two specified nodes in a nana800 automation scheme, so you can rewire workflows by detaching a source node from its target.
Disconnect two nodes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_to | Yes | The target node ID | |
| node_from | Yes | The source node ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the disconnect is reversible, what happens if no edge exists, whether permissions are required, or what is returned — all critical for a mutation tool.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, so there is no waste — but the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but nearly empty of content.
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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits side effects, failure modes, and return behavior. An agent could invoke it, but could not predict consequences.
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 node_from and node_to both documented as source and target node IDs. The description adds no format, ID-source, or ordering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Disconnect two nodes") so an agent can tell it removes a link between two nodes. It does not, however, contrast with the inverse sibling node_connect or clarify whether this operates on scheme graph edges.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus node_connect, node_delete, or node_get_scheme_edges. No preconditions (both nodes must exist? must the edge exist?) are given, leaving the agent to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.