create_auth_refreshExtend a valid session by exchanging it for a fresh token, preserving the remember-me setting to keep the session alive beyond the browser.
Exchange a valid session token for a fresh one.
The new token carries over the remember-me choice recorded on the old one, so refreshing doesn't downgrade a remembered session to one that dies with the browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.25.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable detail about the remember-me flag being preserved, which is a non-obvious behavioral guarantee. It doesn't mention old token invalidation or response details, but for a simple refresh operation the disclosed behavior is meaningful.
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 is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence adds a useful behavioral nuance. No words are wasted.
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-parameter auth operation, the description covers the essential purpose and an important behavioral side effect. It lacks explicit detail about the response format or whether the old token becomes invalid, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the operation itself rather than parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Exchange a valid session token for a fresh one.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related auth operations like create_auth_token or create_auth_logout, since it explicitly requires an existing valid token.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a valid session token exists and a fresh one is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.