disconnect_popularityDisconnect a popularity source and delete its stored credentials after owner approval, so outdated or unwanted Apple Ads, Google Ads Planner, or imported popularity connections are removed.
Disconnect a popularity source and delete its stored credentials. Ask the owner first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Popularity source. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't carrying the safety profile alone. It still adds value by naming what is destroyed (stored credentials) and requiring owner sign-off, though it doesn't say whether previously fetched popularity/volume data survives or whether reconnection is possible.
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 sentences, no filler, and the destructive action is front-loaded ahead of the confirmation caveat. Nothing redundant with the title.
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 mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, destruction target, and authorization. The remaining gap is whether the underlying popularity data is retained after credential deletion, which an agent might reasonably need to know.
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% and the single parameter is a fully enumerated string, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about how 'source' maps to the disconnect action beyond what the enum already declares, which is the baseline case.
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 ('Disconnect') and resource ('popularity source') plus the concrete side effect ('delete its stored credentials'). This cleanly separates it from the sibling connect_popularity and from read-only siblings like get_popularity_status or fetch_popularity.
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?
'Ask the owner first' gives a real prerequisite, which implies this is a deliberate teardown action rather than routine. However, it never states when-not-to-use it as opposed to leaving the source connected, and doesn't point at connect_popularity for the inverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.