Skip to main content
Glama

secureflows-mcp

by io.github.michal-lefler

Log out (invalidate sessionToken + revoke Firebase refresh tokens)

post_auth_logout

Logs out the current session without revoking it.

Browser warning: calling this endpoint via XHR/fetch from a different origin than secure-flows.com is not a reliable way to clear hosted-login cookies. For browser apps (especially localhost), prefer the redirect helper GET /api/v1/auth/logout?session_token=...&redirect_uri=....

Behavior:

  • Invalidates the current sessionToken by incrementing tokenRevision (no new token is issued).

  • Calls Firebase revokeRefreshTokens(firebaseUid) using the session’s stored Firebase UID.

  • Sets Clear-Site-Data: "cookies" to clear browser cookies (including Firebase session cookie).

Session payload and session row are not deleted or modified (other than tokenRevision).

Source: POST /api/v1/auth/logout Requires auth.sessionToken and forwards it as a Bearer token. Prefer connection.workspaceName and connection.appId as stable config instead of generating identity fields dynamically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authNo
bodyNo
queryNo
paramsNo
connectionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses the effects: it invalidates the session token, revokes Firebase refresh tokens, sets Clear-Site-Data, and explicitly states what it does NOT do (does not delete or modify the session payload/row except tokenRevision). This is highly transparent given there are no annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-organized with sections and bullet points, but it is somewhat verbose, with some redundancy (e.g., repeating the 'without revoking' idea later clarified). The key information is front-loaded, so it remains effective.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, side effects, and a critical warning. It does not describe the response format or error cases, but since no output schema is provided and this is a logout operation, the omission is acceptable. Overall, it is complete for most usage scenarios.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, and the tool description adds minimal extra meaning, such as noting that the sessionToken is forwarded as a Bearer token. This is helpful but not a major addition beyond the schema's existing coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool logs out the current session, but the phrase 'without revoking it' is contradictory to the subsequent behavior of invalidating the session token and revoking refresh tokens. This ambiguity might confuse an agent, though the overall intent is discernible from the rest of the text.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly warns against using this tool in browser contexts and recommends the alternative GET /api/v1/auth/logout redirect helper for browser apps. It also explains the behavior in detail, making it clear when to use this endpoint versus the sibling tools.

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

All secureflows-mcp toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools cover nearly identical actions with subtle differences: post_sessions, post_sessions_get_or_create, and post_sessions_renew_session_token all create/reuse sessions; get_auth_logout and post_auth_logout both log out; and the two revoke endpoints overlap heavily. An agent would struggle to pick the correct variant without reading detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes HTTP-verb prefixes (get_, post_, delete_) with domain-specific verbs (auth_session_callback, secureflows_build_login_url), and get_sessions_get_key is redundant and awkward. The pattern is inconsistent across the set even though individual chunks are readable.

Tool Count3/5

18 tools is on the heavy side for what is essentially session lifecycle management plus a few helper utilities. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., one logout tool, one revoke tool, one key-access pattern), making the surface feel fragmented.

Completeness4/5

The session lifecycle is well covered: create, renew, revoke, logout, get payload, set/delete keys, identity, and self-service listing are all present. Minor gaps include no direct TTL adjustment after creation and no admin-level session management, but the core workflows are complete.

Resources