Rotate a confidential OAuth2 application's client secret, immediately invalidating the old secret and returning the new one once for secure storage.
Rotate the client secret of a confidential OAuth2 application. Returns the new secret once — store it securely. The old secret is immediately invalidated. Cannot be called via API key or OAuth2 token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | OAuth2 app UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the mutation profile; the description adds genuinely non-inferable behavior: the new secret is returned exactly once and must be stored, and the old secret is invalidated immediately. The auth-method restriction is also stated, which no annotation conveys. Minor tension with destructiveHint=false is explainable (the app is not deleted, only its credential replaced), so it is not a contradiction.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it does, what it returns, what happens to the old value, plus the auth constraint. The operation itself is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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?
With one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers everything an agent needs: the effect on existing credentials, the one-time return of the new secret, and the calling-context restriction.
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?
There is a single parameter (uuid) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline for a fully-documented single-param tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (rotate the client secret) and scopes it to confidential OAuth2 applications. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like oauth2_clients_update (field edits) and oauth2_clients_revoke (credential revocation) without opening any schema.
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?
Gives a clear when-not condition ('Cannot be called via API key or OAuth2 token'), which is a real precondition an agent must check before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use oauth2_clients_update for non-secret changes, oauth2_clients_revoke to disable the app), so it falls one step short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.