Clears the stored IntakeQ API key, removing sensitive credentials from the server to reset authentication and secure access.
Clear the stored IntakeQ API key
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": "clear_api_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral implications. 'Clear' implies a destructive or state-changing effect, but the description does not mention that clearing the key will break authenticated API calls until a new key is set, nor does it indicate irreversibility or any confirmation steps. This leaves the agent without important behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the entire purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
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 tool this simple (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. It fails to explain the broader impact (e.g., subsequent auth_status will show unauthenticated, set_api_key must be used to reconfigure) and lacks any mention of success/failure behavior. These omissions are noticeable given the lack of annotations, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the severity.
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 coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because there are none to describe, so this score 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and a clear resource ('stored IntakeQ API key'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like 'set_api_key' and 'auth_status', which are related but have different actions.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or the need to reconfigure after clearing. The description simply states the action without indicating appropriate use cases, such as when an API key is invalid or needs to be reset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.