mail_revokeAPITokenV1Revoke an API token to immediately invalidate its access to the Hostinger Email API. This irreversible action secures your account by removing compromised or unused tokens.
Revoke an API token. The token immediately loses access to the Hostinger Email API. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenId | Yes | API token ID (returned when the token was created) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.23.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, but the description adds specific behavioral detail: the token immediately loses access to the Hostinger Email API and the action is irreversible. This goes beyond the generic destructiveHint and clarifies exactly what is destroyed.
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 three short sentences with the core action first and the critical warning immediately after. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter, fully documented tool with safety annotations, the description conveys the action, scope, immediacy, and irreversibility. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, and the tokenId schema description already explains that the ID is returned when the token was created. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the high-coverage baseline.
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 opens with 'Revoke an API token,' a specific verb and resource. It further scopes the action to Hostinger Email API tokens, clearly distinguishing it from sibling token tools like mail_createAPITokenV1 and mail_listAPITokensV1.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives; usage is inferred from the verb and resource name. 'This action cannot be undone' provides a cautionary note but no direct routing guidance among the create/list/revoke API token siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.