Polar MCP

Revoke Polar OAuth Access

polar_revoke_access

Destructive

Disconnect the Polar MCP by deleting the local token file and revoking remote grants if needed, but only with explicit user intent.

Instructions

Delete the local Polar token file. Use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect this MCP; revoke the remote grant from Polar if needed. 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.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.4Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

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"
+}

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.3.6Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the destruction profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds useful specifics beyond them: what exactly is destroyed (the local token file), the scope limit (remote grant is not necessarily revoked), and the intent gate that prevents autonomous agent invocation.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the destructive action and its scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage restriction and gate.

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 described, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the ambiguous 'revoke the remote grant from Polar if needed' clause, which leaves unclear whether this tool reaches the remote server.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description meaningfully explains the gating semantics of explicit_user_intent beyond the schema text. But response_format is documented in neither schema nor description, so coverage is only partially compensated.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete the local Polar token file.' It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings such as polar_get_auth_url and polar_exchange_code, which handle the opposite direction of the auth lifecycle.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect this MCP') and a hard gate ('explicit_user_intent: true'). However, 'revoke the remote grant from Polar if needed' is ambiguous about whether this tool performs that revoke or the caller must do it separately, and no alternative sibling is named.

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

Deploy Server