Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
searchts

searchts

by capad-xyz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

login_kill

Deletes searchts's saved login for one site so the next read prompts again; use when read_url reports the saved login expired. Does not touch browser cookies unless also_browser is true.

Instructions

Delete searchts's own saved login for one site, so the next read of it asks again. Use when a read_url error says the saved login has expired. Does NOT delete the cookies in the user's own Firefox or Chrome unless also_browser is true, because those are the user's and they did not ask for them to be removed. Update check: when a newer release exists, a successful result also carries 'update_available' plus, at most once per 24 hours, one line telling the agent. The check is one GET to the GitHub latest release of capad-xyz/searchts, at most once per 24 hours, cached in ~/.searchts/update-check.json, with a searchts User-Agent and nothing about the user. Nothing is installed or changed. SEARCHTS_NO_UPDATE_CHECK=1 turns the check and the note off.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "login_kill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
also_browserNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that deletion is limited to searchts's own stored login, that user browser cookies survive unless also_browser is true, and that the update check performs one GitHub GET cached at ~/.searchts/update-check.json with no user data and an opt-out env var. It omits error/no-op behavior when no saved login exists and reversibility (whether re-auth is immediate).

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?

Front-loads the action and the when-to-use trigger in the first two sentences with zero waste. The trailing update-check block is accurate and discloses a real network side effect, but it is disproportionately long for a deletion tool and reads as boilerplate shared across all tools.

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

Completeness4/5

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 explained, and the description covers the major behavioral risk (cookie deletion scope) plus the update-check side effect. Gaps remain around no-saved-login handling and url matching granularity for a tool this simple.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: also_browser is given precise semantics ('also deletes cookies in the user's Firefox or Chrome') and the url param is contextualized as 'one site'. It never specifies the expected url format (domain vs full path/URL) or whether matching is exact.

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?

States a specific verb + resource + scope: delete searchts's own saved login for one site. It sharply distinguishes this resource from browser cookies ('the user's own Firefox or Chrome') and links its effect to read_url re-prompting, so an agent knows exactly what is removed versus merely re-asked.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a read_url error says the saved login has expired.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. It does not name an alternative path (e.g. login_signin from login_check/login_status) or state when-not to use, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools