Delete an OAuth client by client ID to revoke its authorization and stop it from calling protected tools.
Delete an OAuth client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | Client ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action ('delete') but omits essential details such as irreversibility, potential invalidation of existing tokens, required permissions, or other side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and direct.
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 delete tool, the description is minimal but leaves out important operational context: permanence, side effects on tokens, and any required privileges. Given the lack of annotations or output schema, the description should carry more of this burden to ensure an agent can call the tool correctly.
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 input schema already provides a description for client_id, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('OAuth client'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_client, update_client, get_client, and list_clients. The meaning is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
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 use case is implicitly clear from the verb, and the sibling set offers no alternative delete-like tool for OAuth clients. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.