Fitbit MCP

Revoke Fitbit OAuth Access

fitbit_revoke_access

Destructive

Revoke your Fitbit OAuth access and delete the local token file when you want to disconnect Fitbit. Requires explicit user intent to prevent autonomous revocation.

Instructions

Revoke the current Fitbit OAuth grant and delete the local token file. Use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect Fitbit. Gated by explicit_user_intent: true (requires explicit user intent).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No		markdown
`explicit_user_intent`	No	Must be true after the user explicitly asked to disconnect. Prevents agents from revoking autonomously.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`token_path`	Yes
`local_tokens_cleared`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.11Jul 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / explicit_user_intent

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true after the user explicitly asked to disconnect. Prevents agents from revoking autonomously.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.4.5May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the specific detail of deleting the local token file, which is useful but not a major extension beyond the hints. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences covering purpose and usage. Front-loaded with the core action. No redundant information.

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?

With annotations and output schema present, the description covers essential context for a destructive tool. Could note consequences after revocation, but overall adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50% (only explicit_user_intent has a description). The description adds context for explicit_user_intent but does not explain response_format. Baseline 3 for moderate coverage; limited additional value.

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?

The description clearly states the action (revoke OAuth grant and delete token file) and the resource (Fitbit access). No sibling tools perform revocation, so it distinguishes well.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states 'Use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect Fitbit' and references the required 'explicit_user_intent' parameter. Provides clear context for appropriate invocation.

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