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 an image' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether removal is permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., if the image doesn't exist), or side effects. The input schema hints at a 'force' parameter for in-use images, but the description doesn't explain this behavior, leaving gaps 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 with just three words ('Remove an image'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool, this brevity is appropriate, though it may sacrifice detail. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, which are crucial for a removal tool. The schema helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear docs for 'id' and 'force', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying an image is targeted by 'id'. This meets the baseline of 3, as no additional value is provided, but the schema adequately compensates.

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 an image' states a clear verb ('remove') and resource ('image'), providing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of image (e.g., Docker image) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'remove_container' or 'remove_volume', which share the same verb but target different resources. This makes it adequate but vague in context.

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., needing an existing image), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'remove_container' or 'list_images'. Without such context, users might struggle to select the correct tool in this server's ecosystem.

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