revoke_version_share_linkRevoke all share links for a saved version, disabling public and code-protected URLs to prevent further access.
Disable every existing public or code-protected URL for one exact saved version. Re-publishing a protected link rotates its code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| version_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying that ALL public and code-protected URLs are disabled for the version, and clarifies the effect of re-publishing a protected link. This goes beyond the 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence adds useful behavioral nuance. No wasted words or redundant structure.
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?
The core behavior is clear and the annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. However, the complete lack of parameter explanations (especially idempotency_key) and no mention of return values or edge cases leaves gaps for an agent fully understanding the tool's invocation context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at version_id via 'one exact saved version'; project_id and idempotency_key are entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 uses a specific verb 'Disable' and clearly identifies the resource: 'every existing public or code-protected URL for one exact saved version.' It directly contrasts with sibling tools like create_version_share_link and get_version_share_link, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 usage context is implied (use this to revoke all share links for a version), but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. The note about re-publishing rotating codes hints at an alternative workflow, but it is not stated as a directive or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.