saihm_revoke_shareRevoke an existing sharing contract using its contractId to withdraw a grantee's access previously granted via share. Provide the contractId to terminate the sharing agreement immediately.
Revoke an existing sharing contract by its contractId. Use this to withdraw a grantee's access previously granted with saihm_share.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contractId | Yes | Sharing contract ID to revoke |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms the mutation but does not add details about side effects, permissions, or response behavior. It is consistent with annotations but adds minimal new insight.
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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words or information.
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 tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and usage clearly, though it does not mention the response format (e.g., success indication).
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 covers 100% of parameters, with contractId described as 'Sharing contract ID to revoke'. The description repeats this without providing additional semantics, 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 clearly states the action (revoke) and the resource (sharing contract by contractId). It also references the related tool saihm_share, distinguishing this tool as the counterpart for withdrawing access.
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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to withdraw a grantee's access previously granted with saihm_share.' This provides clear context and implicitly excludes other uses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.