Unmount a capability server by terminating its subprocess, unregistering its alias-prefixed tools, and removing it from persisted config.
Unmount a capability server: terminate its subprocess, unregister its '__' tools and remove it from the persisted config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the concrete side effects: subprocess termination, tool unregistration, and persisted config removal. It omits whether removal is irreversible or requires specific permissions, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds specific operational detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description adequately covers the removal side effects and scope; only a stronger irreversibility or authorization warning would make it fully complete.
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 compensate for the single alias parameter. It partially does by showing that alias is used in the '<alias>__<tool>' tool naming convention, but it does not define alias format, source, or validation constraints.
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 uses a specific verb ("Unmount") and resource ("capability server") and enumerates the exact effects: terminate subprocess, unregister tools, remove persisted config. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like capability_add, capability_list, and capability_search.
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?
Usage is strongly implied by the removal semantics, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., capability_add for adding, capability_verify for checking). No when-not conditions or sibling routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.