Revoke a temporary asset URL before it expires to cut off access to generated files or pages.
Revoke a temporary asset URL before it expires.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "markovo_asset_revoke"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | ||
| grant_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the URL is invalidated, but says nothing about whether revocation is reversible, whether it requires ownership of the job/grant, what happens if the URL already expired, or whether the call is idempotent.
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?
One short sentence with the action and object front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description should at minimum identify the identifiers and the expected effect. Only the surface purpose is covered; everything needed to actually invoke it is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither job_id nor grant_id, so the agent has no idea what these identifiers are, where to obtain them, or how they relate to each other. It also omits that both are optional, which is unusual for a revocation call.
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?
States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (temporary asset URL), which is clearly distinct from the sibling markovo_asset_url that presumably mints such URLs. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the condition that routes between them.
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 phrase 'before it expires' implies the tool is for early invalidation rather than waiting out the TTL, but there is no statement of when to prefer revocation over simply letting the URL lapse, no prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.