remove_mcp

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it does not specify whether the operation irreversibly deletes the server definition, whether it affects running processes, or whether any confirmation is required. Without these details, an agent cannot fully anticipate consequences.

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, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the file path provides necessary specificity without clutter.

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 mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential action and target. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., behavior if the server name does not exist) or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the MCP must be stopped first). Given no annotations, a bit more context on consequences would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% — the only parameter 'mcp_name' is described as 'The name of the MCP server to remove.' The description adds no extra information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; 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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('MCP server'), and the exact configuration file path ('~/.claude/mcp.json'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_mcp and configure_mcp, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: to remove an MCP server from the user configuration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sibling set makes the purpose obvious. For a simple removal tool, this is sufficient context, though it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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