Revoke saved permanent permissions for a specific course or all courses, restoring per-operation confirmation dialogs. Use it to clear remembered consent and require approval again.
【撤銷特定或全部永久許可】撤銷指定課程或所有已記憶的永久操作許可，恢復為每次操作皆跳窗確認。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | 欲撤銷之特定動作代碼（例如 homework:create） | |
| courseId | No | 欲撤銷之課程 ID（若留空則撤銷所有課程） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key consequence: after revocation every operation reverts to a per-action confirmation prompt. It does not state whether revocation is itself undoable, whether it requires any authorization, or what the response confirms, which matters for a destructive-style mutation.
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?
A single compact sentence preceded by a bracketed scope tag; the effect and the resulting state are front-loaded with no filler. The 【】 label is mildly redundant with the tool name but serves as a quick scannable summary.
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 two-optional-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and post-condition, which is enough to invoke it. It stops short of covering reversibility, return confirmation, or interaction with list_granted_consents, leaving a moderate gap.
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 100%, so both parameters (action code and courseId) are already documented, and the description adds only the scoping rule that leaving courseId empty means all courses. That restates the schema's own note rather than adding new meaning.
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 uses a specific verb (revoke) and resource (permanent consent/permissions), and clarifies the two scopes: a single action/course or all remembered permissions. It clearly contrasts with consent-granting siblings like request_action_consent by describing the inverse operation, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when previously remembered permanent permissions should be withdrawn. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of checking list_granted_consents first, and no note on prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.