Deletes a MongoDB collection along with all its documents and indexes; require confirm_name to match the collection name before destructive removal.
Drop a collection with all its documents and indexes. confirm_name must repeat the collection name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| database | No | ||
| collection | Yes | ||
| connection | No | ||
| confirm_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing the exact scope of destruction (documents plus indexes, not just the namespace) and the confirm_name guard that prevents accidental drops.
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, zero padding, with the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the confirmation requirement. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.
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 tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the description supplies destruction scope and the confirmation protocol. Remaining gaps are minor: default database/connection resolution and behavior on a missing collection, with no output schema to explain the result.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden for four parameters. It explains confirm_name's repeat-the-name semantics well, but says nothing about database, connection, or what happens if collection doesn't exist; it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 ('Drop a collection') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('with all its documents and indexes'). That phrasing cleanly separates it from delete_documents (documents only), drop_index, and drop_database, so an agent can route without opening a schema.
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 when to use it (full collection removal) but never names alternatives or exclusions, e.g. 'use delete_documents to remove documents while keeping the collection' or 'use drop_database for the whole database'. Usage is inferable but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.