ml_desconectarDisconnect a MercadoLibre seller account by deleting its stored OAuth tokens from this computer, using the account's user_id to stop active access.
Elimina los tokens guardados de una cuenta (deja de estar conectada en esta computadora).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuenta | Yes | user_id de la cuenta a desconectar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=false already signals a mutating operation, and the description usefully adds what is destroyed (saved tokens) and the scope of the effect (connection on this computer only). It does not say whether reconnection requires re-authentication or whether the change is reversible, but it adds real context beyond the annotation.
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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the consequence in parentheses; nothing is padded or redundant.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential effect and its scope. Minor gap: it leaves ambiguous whether the token revocation is purely local or also server-side, which matters for an agent reasoning about re-authentication.
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 100% for the single required parameter (cuenta / user_id), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.
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: deleting an account's stored tokens, with the observable effect (account is no longer connected on this machine). It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic delete, though it never names the counterpart sibling ml_conectar explicitly.
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 parenthetical implies the intended scenario (you want the account to stop being connected here), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to the complementary ml_conectar tool. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.