revoke_connectionRevoke a connection after explicit owner confirmation; jobs using it cannot complete until it is reconnected.
Requires explicit owner authorization. Revoking a connection prevents jobs using it from completing until reconnected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection_id | Yes | ||
| confirm_revoke | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real information on top: it names the concrete blast radius ('jobs using it from completing') and the owner-authorization requirement. It stops short of saying whether the revoke is reversible and how, or what happens to in-flight jobs, but it meaningfully supplements the structured flags.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, each carrying distinct information (authorization requirement, then operational consequence). The impact statement is front-loaded after the access gate, though leading with the verb would have been stronger.
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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization and consequences but omits the parameters entirely and says nothing about recovery or the expected response. It is adequate to understand the risk but not complete enough to call confidently without reading the schema.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions connection_id or confirm_revoke, so the two required parameters get no semantic help at all. The schema's format/const constraints are self-evident, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap on a destructive operation requiring an explicit confirmation flag.
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 sentence 'Revoking a connection prevents jobs using it from completing until reconnected' conveys the operation and its effect, but the tool's core action is only implied by a gerund clause rather than stated as a leading verb+resource. It also never distinguishes itself from the nearby replace_launch_connection or list_connections siblings, leaving the agent to infer whether revoke means delete or just disable the link.
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 only guidance is 'Requires explicit owner authorization,' which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to revoke versus when to use replace_launch_connection, and no exclusion or prerequisite beyond the authorization note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.