delete_mcp_server

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a concrete behavioral consequence—'As tools do server deixam de estar disponíveis'—which is useful for an agent to understand the operational impact beyond the generic destructive flag. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, and the consequence is given immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a straightforward single-parameter deletion tool. The description covers the core action and the immediate outcome, while the schema and destructiveHint cover the parameter and risk. Missing details such as irreversibility or authorization requirements are not explicitly stated, but given the low complexity and annotation coverage, the description is sufficiently 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 100%, and the parameter description ('UUID do MCP server a remover') already fully documents the only parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('um MCP server de um agente'), clearly distinguishing this as the deletion operation among siblings like create_mcp_server, update_mcp_server, and test_mcp_server. It also adds the meaningful consequence that the server's tools become unavailable.

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 implies usage: use this when you want to remove an MCP server from an agent, with the effect that its tools stop being available. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as update_mcp_server or invalidate_mcp_cache, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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