Log out of Ponisha and delete the stored session token to end authenticated access.
Log out and delete the stored session token.
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": "ponisha_logout"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the key undisclosed behavior — the stored session token is deleted, i.e. local session state is destroyed and subsequent calls would need re-authentication. It says nothing about failure modes or whether the token is revoked server-side.
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?
A single sentence with the action and its effect front-loaded; no filler, hedging, or redundancy.
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 simple, annotation-covered, parameterless tool this is nearly complete: action plus state effect. Only a hint that the agent must re-login afterwards is missing, which is a minor gap.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Log out') plus the concrete side effect ('delete the stored session token'), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not name the login siblings it pairs with, but the purpose is 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this ends an authenticated session and pairs with login_password/login_otp_verify and session_status. There is no explicit 'call when you are finished with the session' or any note about what to do afterwards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.