Deletes a server and moves its logs to trash for restore or emptying. Works only when allowDevDelete is enabled in admin settings.
Deletes a server (off by default — works only when the user turns on allowDevDelete in the admin app settings). Logs move to the trash, where the admin app can restore or empty them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverId | Yes | Server ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion is gated by an admin setting and is a soft delete whose logs go to a restorable trash. It doesn't say what happens to the server's channels/messages or who may invoke it, so it falls short of 5.
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 tight sentences with the verb front-loaded and the operational caveat parenthesized rather than buried. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the enablement gate and the restorable-trash outcome. Minor gap is the unstated fate of the server's contents and permissions.
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% for the single serverId parameter, which the schema already documents as 'Server ID to delete'. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Deletes a server') that is immediately distinguishable from the sibling delete_channel and create_server. An agent can tell what this tool acts on without opening the 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?
Gives a concrete precondition: the tool is off by default and only functions when the admin enables allowDevDelete. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. delete_channel) or saying when a restore path should be preferred, but the gating condition is clear context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.