Clear saved authentication credentials for the Google Tag Manager MCP Server to resolve connection issues or switch accounts.
保存された認証情報をリセットします
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": "reset_auth"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('reset saved authentication information') but doesn't explain what 'reset' entails (e.g., does it delete credentials, revoke tokens, require re-authentication?), potential side effects, or any permissions/rate limits needed. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple reset operation. However, as a mutation tool with no behavioral details (e.g., what 'reset' means, effects on other operations), it lacks completeness for safe and informed use by an AI agent, especially compared to siblings like 'authenticate'.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the schema is fully covered.
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 states a clear action ('reset') on a specific resource ('saved authentication information'), which is more specific than just restating the tool name. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling alternatives like 'delete_auth' or 'clear_auth', though no such siblings exist in the provided list.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication must exist), consequences (e.g., what happens after reset), or related tools like 'authenticate' or 'check_auth_status' from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.