MCPfinder 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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Removes'), which is essential. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether the removal is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects running instances, or what happens if the specified server_id doesn't exist. The description provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the primary action immediately clear.

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 destructive operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It clearly states the destructive nature and parameter relationships, but lacks information about what happens after removal (success/failure indicators), error conditions, or system impacts. The description covers the basics but leaves important contextual gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds some value by clarifying the exclusive relationship between client_type and config_file_path ('Provide EITHER... OR...') and providing context about client applications, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the comprehensive schema descriptions already provide for all 4 parameters.

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 specific action ('Removes') and resource ('configuration for a specific MCP server/tool from the client application'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_mcp_server_config (adds), get_mcp_server_details (reads), search_mcp_servers (searches), and stream_mcp_events (streams). The description explicitly identifies what gets removed (server configuration) and from where (client applications).

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (to remove a specific MCP server configuration) and specifies the exclusive parameter options (client_type OR config_file_path). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like modifying instead of removing, or which sibling tools might be complementary (e.g., using get_mcp_server_details first to verify what to remove).

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