Revoke a direct URL so it immediately returns 404 and stops serving access. Supports idempotent retries and requires shares:write permission.
Revoke a direct URL immediately; it starts returning 404. Requires shares:write; supports idempotency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation, but the description adds real context: the effect is immediate, the URL begins returning 404, and the call requires the shares:write scope. Idempotency support is also disclosed, which matters for retry behavior. What's missing is whether the revocation is reversible.
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: the action, its effect, the permission requirement, and the idempotency trait each earn their place.
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-parameter mutation with an output schema, the essentials are covered: effect, auth scope, and idempotency. The remaining gap is the meaning/source of link_id, which an agent must guess at.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the idempotency_key parameter's purpose ('supports idempotency'), but link_id is never described – no format, no note on where to obtain it. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.
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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource: 'Revoke a direct URL'. That distinguishes it reasonably from create_link and clip_url, though it doesn't say how it differs from the closely related revoke_share and revoke_file_request siblings.
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 rather than stated: it's the inverse of link creation and only applies to direct URLs, which hints at the boundary with share/file-request revocation. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance despite three revoke-family siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.