tslink

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Revoke a browser guest link

guest_revoke

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently revoke a browser guest grant by ID in local state, returning grant metadata and blocking further use of that link. Unknown IDs return not_found.

Instructions

Owner-only: permanently mark one browser guest grant revoked in local state and return its grant metadata; unknown IDs return not_found. Use guest_revoke to deny further use of one link; guest_show only inspects it, and guest_create issues a new grant. Revocation cannot be undone with these tools and does not remove the app or disable its Funnel configuration. Returns no bearer tokens. Makes no remote API calls and does not verify live Funnel availability. Visitors need no OIDC or tailnet account.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "guest_revoke"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`grant`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context the annotations cannot convey: revocation is irreversible with these tools, it does not remove the app or disable Funnel configuration, it returns no bearer tokens, it makes no remote API calls, and it does not verify live Funnel availability. That is a genuinely rich behavioral profile beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The permanent-state and owner-only constraints are front-loaded, and every sentence carries a distinct fact. It is on the dense side and slightly overloaded with caveats, but there is no filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated; the description still adds the useful note that grant metadata is returned and no bearer tokens are included. Combined with the irreversibility and no-remote-call notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has only one parameter at 0% description coverage (a bare string with minLength 1), so the description must carry the burden. It partially compensates by implying the ID identifies a single grant and by specifying failure behavior ('unknown IDs return not_found'), but it never states what kind of ID this is or where to obtain it (guest_list/guest_show). Partial coverage, not full.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('permanently mark one browser guest grant revoked in local state') and explicitly differentiates from the two nearest siblings: 'guest_show only inspects it, and guest_create issues a new grant.' An agent can distinguish this from every guest_* sibling without reading any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit selection rule ('Use guest_revoke to deny further use of one link') plus named alternatives (guest_show for inspection, guest_create for issuing new grants), so the when-to-use vs when-not-to-use decision is fully specified rather than inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.