Skip to main content
Glama

Renew link protection

renew_link

Rotate a link's access token and secret to invalidate old credentials immediately. Set a new TTL (default 24h) to control how long the fresh credentials remain valid.

Instructions

Rotate the capability token and secret code for a link (Pro plan required): fresh credentials are minted and the countdown restarts, and the previous credentials stop working immediately. If ttl is omitted, protection defaults to 24 hours. For a duration-only change without rotating credentials, use update_ttl instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ttlNoOptional updated duration (e.g. 24h, 3d, 7d); defaults to 24 hours.
labelYesLabel of the link to renew.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.9
    • changedInput schema / properties / ttl / description
      Previous value: -"Optional updated duration (e.g. 24h, 3d, 7d)."New value: +"Optional updated duration (e.g. 24h, 3d, 7d); defaults to 24 hours."
  2. First observedv0.8.6

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds critical behavior beyond the annotations: fresh credentials are minted, the countdown restarts, and previous credentials stop working immediately. This helps the agent anticipate the irreversible invalidation of old credentials. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the primary action is front-loaded. The alternative tool is mentioned at the end with a clear conditional. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers prerequisites, ttl defaults, and the consequence of rotation. With no output schema, it could also state whether the new credentials are returned in the response, but this is a minor gap for an otherwise complete description.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaning around ttl (defaults to 24 hours) and differentiates ttl-only changes as a separate tool, but label is not enhanced beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rotate') and resource ('capability token and secret code') and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling update_ttl for duration-only changes. The Pro plan requirement further clarifies scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool ('For a duration-only change without rotating credentials, use update_ttl instead') and states the Pro plan prerequisite. The behavior is described in a way that makes the use case self-evident.

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