Refresh your expired access token to continue using Tencent Ads API operations without interruption.
刷新 access_token (Refresh access token)
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": "oauth_refresh_token"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'refresh access token' but does not mention side effects, required prior authorization, token expiration details, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a security-sensitive 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 very short, combining two languages. It is efficient but lacks any structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections). It earns its place but could be more organized.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what happens when the token is refreshed (e.g., new token returned, old token invalidated). The current text is too minimal to be complete for an OAuth refresh operation.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty object). The description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is warranted. However, the description also does not explain that no input is required, earning a 3.
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 it refreshes an access token, using a specific verb (refresh) and resource (access_token). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like oauth_exchange_code which also deals with tokens, but the verb 'refresh' provides some distinction.
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 use this tool versus alternatives, such as oauth_get_authorize_url or oauth_exchange_code. The description only states the action without clarifying prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.