Delete a stored TOTP configuration by name to remove its two-factor authentication secret from the encrypted vault.
Delete a stored TOTP configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the TOTP config to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether confirmation is required, what happens if the name doesn't exist, or what the response contains — critical unknowns for a destructive mutation.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail.
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 destructive, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether the deletion is recoverable, whether it affects active sessions, or how failures are surfaced.
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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, and the description adds nothing beyond it. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
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?
Specific verb ('Delete') plus specific resource ('stored TOTP configuration') makes the operation unmistakable. The verb alone distinguishes it from siblings like totp_store, totp_list, and totp_code, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to delete versus revoke or regenerate a TOTP config, and no prerequisites or warnings. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.