Revoke an OAuth access token to immediately invalidate it, preventing further use and securing user accounts.
Revoke an access_token.
POST /oauth/revoke
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds the HTTP method and a pointer to the schema endpoint, but doesn't explain the consequences of revoking (e.g., token invalidation, re-auth). It's acceptable but not rich.
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 concise with a clear purpose, endpoint, and args section. It's front-loaded with the action. The redirect to schema is a bit of a detour but keeps it short.
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 revoke operation, it's missing context like when to use, prerequisites (having an active token), and error handling. However, output schema may cover response format. The description is functional but not comprehensive.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides a generic instruction to read the GET or /schema endpoint for fields, but doesn't list actual parameters or examples. This is minimal guidance but not zero.
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 verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'access_token', making the purpose unambiguous. It also includes the HTTP endpoint, which is helpful. Though it doesn't differentiate from siblings, the purpose is clear.
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 on when to use this tool or alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like token expiry, security, or comparison with create_oauth_token. The agent is left to infer when revocation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.