Release an idle dataset owned by the current connection to free it without cancelling running or timed-out queries; saved HTML and result files remain available.
Release an idle dataset owned by this connection. Do not use to cancel a running or timed-out query. Saved HTML and result files remain available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datasetId | Yes | ID returned by ava_source in this MCP connection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description earns credit for adding real context beyond them: the effect is scoped to the current connection, and artifacts survive ('Saved HTML and result files remain available'), which materially distinguishes this from a deletion. It does not say what happens if the dataset is not idle or whether an error is returned.
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?
Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: stating the action, ruling out the common misuse, and clarifying what is not lost. The action and exclusion are front-loaded with no filler.
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 single-parameter release tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, exclusion, and postcondition. The only real gap is failure mode behavior when the dataset is busy or already released, which an agent would want before calling.
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% and the datasetId pattern plus provenance note already document the parameter fully. The description's 'owned by this connection' reinforces the origin constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 with scope: 'Release an idle dataset owned by this connection.' The clause 'Do not use to cancel a running or timed-out query' also separates it from query-cancellation behavior an agent might otherwise assume. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
Provides a clear positive condition (idle dataset owned by this connection) and an explicit exclusion (not for cancelling a running or timed-out query). What is missing is a pointer to the alternative an agent should use for the excluded case, leaving that inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.