Sign out by deleting the stored OpenRouter key from this computer. Use it to clear local workspace credentials; the key remains valid until removed on the OpenRouter keys dashboard.
Sign out: delete the stored OpenRouter key from this computer.
The key stays valid on OpenRouter until it is deleted on the keys dashboard; the result links that page. Takes no parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a non-obvious behavioral fact: the local key deletion does NOT invalidate the key on OpenRouter, which must be deleted on the dashboard. It also notes the result links that page. It stops short of describing any failure modes or side effects.
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?
Front-loaded with the action verb and core effect, followed by the important caveat about remote key validity. Every sentence adds value; the 'Takes no parameters' line is mildly redundant given the schema but harmless.
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 logout tool, the description covers what happens locally, what does not happen remotely, and what the result contains. No output schema exists, yet it adequately signals the return. Complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters,' which is consistent with the empty schema and leaves no ambiguity.
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 ('Sign out') and the concrete action ('delete the stored OpenRouter key from this computer'), making the resource and effect unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from its counterpart auth_login and the other image-related siblings.
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 intent (sign out) is implied clearly enough that an agent will know when to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as auth_login. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.