wsp_login_again_gscDeletes the saved OAuth token and opens a browser login so you can switch Google accounts, fix authentication errors, or apply a changed WSP_ALLOW_WRITES setting.
Delete the saved OAuth token and open a browser login. Use it to switch Google accounts, fix auth errors, or apply a changed WSP_ALLOW_WRITES setting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-readOnly, but the description adds the concrete consequence: the saved OAuth token is DELETED, and a browser is opened. That tells the agent what is destroyed and that the call is interactive, beyond what the hints convey. It stops short of covering failure modes (no browser available) or effects on in-flight sessions, which is why it is not 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 sentences, no filler: the first states the action, the second states the use cases. The destructive action is front-loaded before the rationale, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for side effects.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what happens, what is destroyed, and when to invoke it. The one remaining gap is that it does not warn that a browser/interactive environment is required or what happens if login fails.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for a 0-param tool applies, and nothing here misleads about inputs.
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 gives a specific verb and object pair: it deletes the saved OAuth token and opens a browser login. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are all Google Search Console data operations (sitemaps, sites, URLs, traffic), so an agent can route to it without opening a schema.
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?
It explicitly names three triggering situations: switching Google accounts, fixing auth errors, and applying a changed WSP_ALLOW_WRITES setting. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative (e.g. a read-only status check first), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.