unwrap_mcp_stdio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the need for a restart. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, or what happens if the server isn't actually wrapped. These are minor gaps for a simple tool but keep it at a mid level.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the critical operational note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its effect (restoring original command), and the required follow-up action. It could mention expected return behavior, but that's a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and lack of complex output.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter (mcp_name). The tool description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (unwrap), the target (previously wrapped stdio MCP server), and the outcome (restoring its original command). It implicitly contrasts with sibling wrap tools, making it easy to distinguish as the inverse operation.

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 includes a clear prerequisite ('Requires restarting Claude Code to take effect') which informs the agent about the necessary post-step. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of siblings like wrap_mcp_stdio makes the use case obvious. A brief note about when to use this versus unwrap_codex_mcp_stdio would push it to 5.

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