Agent Chef

Disconnect an agent

revoke_connected_agent

Destructive

Revoke an OAuth-connected agent's access in Agent Chef with its client_id from get_connected_agents. The agent must sign in again to reconnect.

Instructions

Revoke an OAuth-connected agent's access (client_id from get_connected_agents). It must sign in again to reconnect.

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": {
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_connected_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`revoked`	Yes	client_id that was revoked

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating the consequence: the agent must sign in again to reconnect, clarifying that access is severed rather than merely paused. It doesn't mention permission requirements or reversibility details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The action and its identifier source are front-loaded, with the consequence following immediately.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/read-only profile. The description covers the action, the parameter source, and the post-revocation effect. Only minor preconditions (auth/permission scope for the caller) are absent.

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% and the schema itself gives no semantics for client_id, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the authoritative source of the identifier (get_connected_agents), which is the meaningful missing detail for a single-parameter call.

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 (revoke) plus the resource and scope (an OAuth-connected agent's access), and identifies the exact identifier to pass (client_id from get_connected_agents). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_connected_agents or remove_member without opening the schema.

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?

The parenthetical explicitly routes the agent to get_connected_agents as the source of the client_id, which is the key usage condition. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. distinguishing from other revoke/removal flows), 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.