disconnect_data
Delete a saved dataset and disconnect it from future use.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_id | Yes | Dataset ID from connect_data or list_data. |
Delete a saved dataset and disconnect it from future use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataset_id | Yes | Dataset ID from connect_data or list_data. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It mentions deletion but does not disclose side effects (e.g., data recoverability, impact on dependent tools, or required permissions). The behavioral disclosure is minimal for a destructive operation.
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 one concise sentence with no waste. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, potentially leaving gaps in understanding. A slightly longer description could improve completeness without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and missing annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the full implications of 'disconnect from future use' or provide context on data lifecycle. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with a description for dataset_id. The description adds context by specifying the ID comes from 'connect_data or list_data', which helps the agent source the correct value. This goes beyond the schema's generic description.
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 clearly states the tool deletes a saved dataset and disconnects it, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like connect_data (connect) and list_data (list). However, it could be more precise about what 'disconnect from future use' entails.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as onboard_dataset or delete_connector. The description lacks context on prerequisites or situations where disconnection is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.