refresh_sessionForce a new login using NINOVA_USERNAME and NINOVA_PASSWORD to restore authenticated access when your session expires or credentials change.
Force a new login with NINOVA_USERNAME and NINOVA_PASSWORD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"refresh_sessionDictOutput"New value: +"refresh_sessionOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates session state and involves an external system. The description adds that credentials come from NINOVA_USERNAME/NINOVA_PASSWORD, but does not say whether the prior session is invalidated, whether failure leaves the old session intact, or whether an existing login is required first.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse to the point of leaving behavior unexplained, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a non-read-only, non-idempotent session-mutating tool, the missing detail on side effects (session invalidation, failure behavior) leaves a meaningful 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?
With zero input parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description usefully names the environment variables supplying the credentials, which is real information beyond the empty schema.
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 action ('force a new login') on a specific resource (session), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling auth/status tools (auth_status, obs_auth_status), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 instead of auth_status or obs_auth_status, nor on what triggers a needed refresh (expired session? failed auth?). The env-var mention hints at prerequisites but is not framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.