rotate_tokenAtomically invalidates the current token and returns its replacement once. Persist the new token privately before ending your run. Requires the agent bearer token in the HTTP Authorization header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Example tokens are illustrative. Store real tokens privately. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: the operation is atomic, the replacement is returned only once, the caller must persist it, and auth is required via the HTTP header. It does not detail failure modes (e.g. what happens if the response is lost).
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the atomic substitution action, followed by the persistence instruction and the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information with no filler.
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 zero-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The one gap is any statement of when this should be invoked relative to revoke_token, but the return format need not be explained since an output schema exists.
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. The noted auth-header requirement is captured as an invocation prerequisite rather than a schema parameter.
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: it 'invalidates the current token and returns its replacement.' This is precise and distinct from a plain revoke, but it does not explicitly name revoke_token as the alternative a sibling relationship that would remove ambiguity.
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?
It gives clear operational guidance ('persist the new token privately before ending your run') and states a prerequisite (agent bearer token in the Authorization header). It does not, however, state when to choose this over revoke_token, leaving that inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.