MisarReach MCP Server

logout

DestructiveIdempotent

Disconnect this client by deleting the stored MisarReach API key from ~/.misarreach/config.json. Revoke the key in Settings → API keys to retire it fully on the server.

Instructions

Disconnect this client by deleting the stored MisarReach API key from ~/.misarreach/config.json. The key stays valid on the server — revoke it in Settings → API keys to retire it fully.

Tool call template

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": "logout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: precisely what is destroyed (~/.misarreach/config.json key), and the critical server-side nuance that the key remains valid until separately revoked. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the most important fact first (client-side deletion, then the server-side caveat). Every clause earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, its local effect, and the important limitation on server-side revocation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming this is a no-argument operation, which it does implicitly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Disconnect this client by deleting the stored MisarReach API key') and even names the storage location, making it trivially distinguishable from siblings like login and auth_status. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It tells the agent exactly when this is the right call — local client disconnect — and explicitly warns that this does NOT retire the key server-side, pointing to Settings → API keys for full revocation. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (login) for the reverse operation, but the context is otherwise clear.

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