sign_outSign the user out of Warmlink here. Warmlink then asks them to sign in again before anything else, possibly as someone else.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sign_out"
}
}| 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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the downstream consequence beyond the annotations: the user is prompted to sign in again before anything else, possibly as a different account. It stops short of describing session/token revocation scope, which keeps it from 5.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second – a sensible ordering. The closing clause 'possibly as someone else' is slightly loose but conveys real behavior, so it earns its place.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description provides the essential extra fact an agent needs: the user must re-authenticate immediately afterward. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. whether other sessions or cached credentials are affected).
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly says nothing about inputs rather than inventing them.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sign the user out of Warmlink'), which is unambiguous and distinct from all listed siblings (vouch/withdraw/verify). It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling (withdraw), though no sibling is genuinely confusable here.
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 word 'here' implies this is the tool to invoke for ending a session, and the description explains the post-condition (a forced re-login). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no confirmation requirement, and no mention of alternatives for session management.
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.