MiniURL

MiniURL clear_authentication

clear_authentication

Idempotent

Clear authentication retained by a legacy MCP session. Stateless clients clear authentication by omitting the Authorization header on later requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`approval`	No
`retryable`	No
`request_id`	Yes
`retry_after`	No
`next_actions`	No
`required_scope`	No
`user_action_required`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and non-read-only, and the description adds the distinction between legacy session and stateless clients. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like invalidation of active sessions or any required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with the key action front-loaded and a clarifying second sentence. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 0-param tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and the alternative method for stateless clients. It could mention explicit session invalidation effects, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it's nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers the input surface, and the description appropriately adds no extra parameter information. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('authentication'), further scoping it to 'legacy MCP session' and contrasting with stateless clients. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_guest_token and verify_registration_code.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context that this applies to legacy MCP sessions, and explains that stateless clients should instead omit the Authorization header. While it doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, the context is enough to infer when to use it.

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

All MiniURL tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource and action: links, domains, tags, auth, and account status are all separate concerns. Even similar tools like shorten_url and bulk_create_links are differentiated by single vs. batch creation, and check_alias is distinct from get_link by checking availability before creation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_domain, delete_link, list_tags, verify_registration_code). Mixed verb styles like tag/untag and shorten_url are still predictable and fit the established convention.

Tool Count3/5

At 23 tools, the set is on the heavy side and falls in the 16-25 borderline range. The number is somewhat justified by the broad scope (links, domains, tags, auth, analytics), but it approaches the upper limit where an agent may have difficulty selecting between many options.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of short links (create, read, update, delete, list, stats), domain management (add, delete, verify, list), tags (create, list, delete, tag/untag), and account/auth flows (guest tokens, registration, pro upgrade). It is hard to identify any critical missing operation for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?