disconnect_bankRevoke a bank consent and purge its accounts, labels, and watches from this server. Ends secure access when a connection is no longer needed.
Revoke a bank consent at Enable Banking and forget its accounts, labels and watches on this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | From consent_status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It tells the agent the operation is destructive by explicitly listing what is forgotten: accounts, labels, and watches. It stops short of stating irreversibility or access requirements, but the disclosed side effects are substantial.
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 compact sentence with the key verb first and side effects following. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 provides enough to understand the action and its consequences. It could mention that the action cannot be undone, but complexity is low and the core behavior is covered.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already tells the agent session_id comes from consent_status. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly names the action (revoke a bank consent), the provider (Enable Banking), and the local side effects (forget accounts, labels, watches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_banks or create_watch.
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 description implies the use case: when a bank connection should be removed. It does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions when not to use it, such as using delete_watch instead when only a watch should be removed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.