End the current session with Formlabs Web Services to prevent unauthorized access to your printer and account.
Log out of Formlabs Web Services.
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": "logout"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action name itself. It does not disclose side effects like invalidating tokens, clearing session state, or making subsequent authenticated calls fail. With no additional transparency, this is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.
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 a single, sharp sentence that states the action and target with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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, parameterless logout operation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could have mentioned the effect on authentication state or the need to re-login afterward, but the core action is clearly conveyed and nothing essential for calling the tool 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information missing. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 applies here.
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 states a specific verb ('Log out') and a clear resource ('Formlabs Web Services'), making the action unmistakable. It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'login' tool and other tools by naming exactly what it terminates.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pairing it with 'login' or what to do if already logged out. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.