Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-edf

mcp-edf

by mgcrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

EDF: Logout

edf_auth_logout
DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke the stored EDF refresh token and delete it locally. Run it to log out of the energy data session; log in again to restore access.

Instructions

Revoke the stored refresh token at EDF (best effort) and delete it locally. Recoverable by calling edf_auth_login again.

Tool call template

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": "edf_auth_logout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds meaning beyond the annotations by distinguishing a best-effort remote revocation from a guaranteed local deletion, which tells the agent the server-side token may survive a failure. It also discloses recoverability via edf_auth_login, something the destructiveHint annotation alone would not convey. It does not describe the response or behavior when no token is stored, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler, leading with the primary action and following with the recovery note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, idempotency and open-world behavior, the description supplies the key nuances: best-effort remote revoke, local delete, and re-login recovery. The only gap is the exact outcome or error when no refresh token exists, which idempotentHint mostly covers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits input requirements.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: revoke the stored refresh token at EDF and delete it locally. It also distinguishes this from the login flow by naming edf_auth_login as the recovery path, so an agent can tell it apart from edf_auth_status or edf_auth_login without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies the when: end the EDF session and clear stored credentials, with the explicit recovery route 'calling edf_auth_login again'. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions, such as what to do if already logged out (that is left to the idempotentHint annotation).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools