mcp_disconnect

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that disconnecting removes the server's tools, but it omits whether the server can later be reconnected (mcp_connect exists as a sibling), whether the action is reversible, and whether in-flight tool calls are affected.

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?

Two short sentences, action and effect front-loaded, with the helper pointer second. No waste.

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 single-parameter teardown tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, its side effect, and how to obtain the slug. The main remaining gap is the reversibility/reconnect question, which matters given mcp_connect is a sibling.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need only be consistent. It refers to "a connected MCP server" without adding format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema and the mcp_list_active pointer provide.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Disconnect from a connected MCP server") with the key side effect stated ("remove its tools"), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mcp_connect and the read-oriented mcp_list_active.

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?

It names mcp_list_active as the way to find connected servers, which implicitly tells the agent the prerequisite state (a currently connected server) and where to get the slug. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or contrast against alternatives like mcp_connect, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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