forms_access_revokeRevoke a user's or group's permission to change or submit a form, then return all remaining form access permissions.
Stop a user or a group performing an action on a form; returns every permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The action and the user or group to remove. | |
| survey_id | Yes | Form id (24-char hex), from ``surveys_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns every permission, which is useful, but it does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter mutation tool.
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 rich schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and mentions the return value. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling access tools and does not clarify permission requirements, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested user, group, action, and survey_id fields are already well documented. The description only alludes to the user/group/action concept and does not add syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema.
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 specific action (stopping a user or group from performing an action on a form) and the resource involved. It clearly implies revocation rather than granting, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as forms_access_grant or forms_access_set.
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 implies when the tool is relevant by saying 'Stop a user or a group performing an action,' but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus forms_access_set or forms_access_grant. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.