deactivate_clientDeactivate a client in e-arveldaja by ID, stopping active use while keeping the record available for later reactivation.
Deactivate a client (can be restored with reactivate_client)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable reversibility context by stating the client can be restored with reactivate_client, though it does not describe the full operational impact of deactivation.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded immediately. The restoration hint follows naturally without disrupting readability.
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 simple one-parameter reversible mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It only omits what deactivation actually blocks or changes about the client.
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 schema has 100% description coverage and documents the single id parameter as an object ID. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 and resource: deactivate a client. The parenthetical points to reactivate_client for restoration, which implies reversibility, but the description does not explicitly distinguish this from delete_client or update_client.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and the restorative alternative is named, but there is no explicit guidance on when to deactivate instead of delete or update a client. The agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.