Clear local authentication credentials to securely end your PingCode session and protect account access.
退出 PingCode 登录，清除本地保存的凭证。
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.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait ('清除本地保存的凭证' - clears locally saved credentials), which is crucial for understanding this destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens to subsequent API calls.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the complete purpose and key behavioral detail with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple tool.
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 destructive authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks important context about authentication state changes, error handling, and what the tool returns (if anything). It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a security-sensitive operation.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's behavioral effect.
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 clearly states the specific action ('退出' meaning 'logout') and resource ('PingCode'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'login' and 'check_auth'. It provides a complete verb+resource+outcome statement: logout from PingCode and clear local credentials.
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 usage context (when you need to end a PingCode session and remove stored credentials), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'login' or 'check_auth'. It provides clear functional context but lacks explicit comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.