nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical traits: the destructive nature ('DESTRUCTIVE'), permanence ('cannot be undone'), and scope of deletion ('all its descendants'), which are essential for safe tool invocation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a critical warning, all in two concise sentences with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete—it covers purpose, behavior, and risk. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid UID) or response format, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 the 'uid' parameter documented in the schema as 'UI schema UID to remove'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Remove'), target resource ('UI schema node and all its descendants'), and mechanism ('by UID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_ui_schema' or 'insert_new_schema' that modify rather than delete.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to remove a UI schema node by UID) and implicitly suggests caution with the 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, but does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'update_ui_schema' for modifications) or specify prerequisites like permissions.

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