character_logoutRevokes a character's SSO refresh token and removes it from the server, ending their authenticated ESI access. Use only when the user explicitly requests a logout.
Revokes the SSO refresh token for a character and removes it from this server. Only do this when the user asks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character | Yes | Character name or id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses exactly what is destroyed: the SSO refresh token is revoked and the character entry is removed from this server. That is the key operational consequence an agent needs. It doesn't mention re-authentication requirements or irreversibility, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the destructive effect stated first and the usage constraint second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 one-parameter destructive tool with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, and usage gate. Minor gaps (whether the user must re-authenticate, whether it is reversible) are not blocking for correct invocation.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Character name or id'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no additional detail about accepted formats or name-vs-id resolution, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb+resource pair ('revokes the SSO refresh token... removes it from this server') for a named entity, which is clearly the inverse of character_login. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can distinguish it easily.
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?
'Only do this when the user asks' gives an explicit gating condition that prevents unsolicited logouts. It does not name alternatives (e.g. character_select to switch characters without removal), so it is clear context but not full when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.