auth_logoutClear the current authentication session (APIKEY and SHOPID). After this, all tools requiring authentication will fail until a new login is performed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it specifies that the session (APIKEY and SHOPID) is cleared and that all authenticated tools will fail until a new login. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these without contradiction.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the action and its consequences. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 (0 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and its effects. It is complete for the context.
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 input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. For a parameterless tool, a score of 4 is appropriate as there is no missing info.
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 explicitly states it clears the current authentication session (APIKEY and SHOPID), which is the exact purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auth_login_* by focusing on logout.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to end a session and invalidate authentication. It also explains the consequence that authenticated tools will fail afterward. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but given the lack of sibling logout tools, this is sufficient.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action (account, client, order, product, payment, VAT, etc.), with clear naming like 'account_create' vs 'account_edit' and 'data_list_' prefixed listings. No overlapping purposes detected.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., account_create, client_add, data_list_clients). Even compound names like auth_login_with_otp adhere to this structure.
41 tools is high but justified by the wide scope of a POS/accounting system (accounts, clients, orders, products, payments, VAT, reports). Slightly above the typical range but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers CRUD for all major entities (clients, departments, products, VAT, payment modes, orders), plus queries, reports, and authentication. No obvious gaps for a small business management server.