mcp_blacklist_remove

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, leaving the description to disclose behavior. It does not say whether removal is reversible, what happens when the id does not exist, or whether confirmation/permissions are required — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the id-format details parenthetically attached. No wasted words, though the cryptic delimiter notation slightly hurts readability.

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 management operation with only one annotation and no output schema, the description should at least state consequences or side effects of removal. It communicates the target identifier but not the outcome, so an agent cannot fully reason about the call.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It usefully enumerates the accepted id formats (protocol|host|port, cap|<adapterId>, tool|<pattern>), which is genuine added value, but it remains terse and leaves the exact syntax of the pipe-separated forms ambiguous.

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 (Remove) plus resource (blacklist entry) and the identifier it operates on. It clearly distinguishes itself from mcp_blacklist_add and mcp_blacklist_list by naming the removal action, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to remove an entry versus listing or adding one, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the exact id first). Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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