lnkz-mcp

Revoke handoff

revoke_handoff

Idempotent

Immediately invalidate a shared handoff link by providing its handoff ID to prevent further access.

Instructions

Immediately invalidates a handoff link that has already been shared.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "handoffId": "<handoffId>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_handoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handoffId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description says 'Immediately invalidates', which indicates a state change and implies non-read-only behavior. The annotations already specify readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds a small amount of context (immediacy, the fact that the link was already shared) but does not detail side effects, reversibility, or failure modes.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core action without any unnecessary words or clutter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is minimal but adequate for a simple operation. However, it does not mention what happens if the handoff does not exist or is already revoked, nor does it indicate any return value or error conditions. Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), this is a moderate gap.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The only parameter is handoffId, but neither the schema nor the description provides any details about it. The schema has no description for the parameter (coverage 0%), and the description does not compensate by explaining what handoffId refers to or any constraints. The name is self-explanatory, but according to the criteria, the description must compensate for missing schema coverage and does not.

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?

The description clearly states the action: it invalidates a handoff link that has already been shared. The verb 'invalidates' is specific and the resource is identified. The tool name 'revoke_handoff' further reinforces the purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_handoff' or 'continue_handoff'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. While the purpose is self-evident, there is no guidance on when to choose revoke_handoff over other handoff-related tools.

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