Permanently stops a browser profile from offering a saved passkey. Use it to retire a specific passkey login and prevent future prompts from that profile.
Stop this profile from offering one passkey, for good.
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important trait — the removal is permanent ('for good') — which tells the agent this is destructive and irreversible. However, it omits any auth/permission requirements, confirmation semantics, or what happens if no passkey exists, leaving substantial behavioral gaps.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the irreversible nature ('for good') is front-loaded as the key qualifier. Nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is too thin: it never explains how the target passkey/profile is identified or what confirmation/authorization the caller needs. It covers the intent and permanence but leaves the mechanics of invocation unaddressed.
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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the rubric this is the baseline 4. No parameter meaning is added or needed.
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: retiring a passkey so a profile no longer offers it, distinguishing it from passkey_list (read) by its mutating intent. The main weakness is that it never explains which passkey is targeted, and with zero input parameters it's unclear how the caller scopes the operation.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of passkey_list as the read counterpart. An agent must infer that this is the removal counterpart to listing, and nothing states prerequisites or required session context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.