Clears the cached My Hot Lunchbox login token to force a fresh sign-in on the next call. Use after updating credentials or when requests fail due to stale session errors.
Discard the cached My Hot Lunchbox access token so the next tool call signs in again. Use after changing credentials, or if calls start failing with stale-session errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already note the tool is not read-only and is idempotent. The description adds the mechanism (discarding the token) and the behavioral effect (subsequent call re-authenticates), which goes beyond the annotation hints. A small gap: it does not mention any impact on in-flight calls, but for a reset action this is sufficient.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the action, the second gives usage context. Every word contributes to clarity, and the description is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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-argument utility tool with annotations covering idempotency and non-read-only behavior, the description fully explains its role and when to invoke it. No output schema is needed since it is a side-effect operation, and the purpose and trigger conditions are completely specified.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description correctly omits parameter details. No additional parameter explanation is needed because there are none; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action (discarding the cached access token) and its consequence (next call signs in again). It is easily distinguished from the sibling data-operation tools, as it manages session state rather than business data.
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?
Explicitly provides two concrete trigger conditions: after changing credentials, or when calls fail with stale-session errors. This is precise guidance that leaves no ambiguity about when the tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.