VPS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove a container' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify critical behaviors: whether removal is permanent, what happens to associated resources (e.g., volumes, networks), error conditions (e.g., if the container is running), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise ('Remove a container'), with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse. For a simple tool, this brevity is effective, though it may sacrifice completeness.

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?

Given the complexity (a destructive operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: what 'remove' entails (e.g., deletion vs. archival), dependencies on other tools (e.g., stop_container first), or return values. For a mutation tool in this environment, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (id, force, volumes). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how 'id' is resolved, when to use 'force', or implications of 'volumes'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description contributes no additional value.

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 'Remove a container' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('container'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_image', 'remove_network', or 'remove_volume', which all follow the same 'remove [resource]' pattern. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the container must be stopped first), exclusions, or related tools like 'stop_container' or 'list_containers'. Without any usage context, an agent might struggle to apply it correctly in scenarios involving running containers or associated resources.

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