Revoke a direct skill grant for a user or team identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_id | Yes | The skill to act on, identified by its UUID, slug, or name. | |
| grantee_email_or_at_team_handle | Yes | The grantee whose access to revoke: a user's email, or a team's @handle. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the verb 'revoke', which implies a mutation. Does not contradict 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?
A single, clear sentence that fully conveys the purpose. No redundant or missing words. Front-loads the core action.
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 high schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation. Slightly lacking in specifying the effect or prerequisites, but acceptable.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema definitions.
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 action (revoke) and the resource (direct skill grant) with target (user or team identifier). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'grant_skill' and 'list_skill_grants'.
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 like 'grant_skill' or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or error states.
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.
