log_outLogs out of ads.telegram.org and requires fresh cookies in .env afterward. Destructive: use only when explicitly requested, never to fix authentication.
Log out of ads.telegram.org; the user then needs fresh cookies in .env. Destructive; use only when explicitly asked. Never use it to fix auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Confirm",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the word "Destructive" adds nothing. What earns credit is the real-world consequence it discloses beyond the annotations: the user needs fresh cookies in .env afterward, an operational side effect no schema or annotation conveys.
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 tight clauses separated by semicolons: the action, the consequence, then the usage restriction. Front-loaded and zero waste.
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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adds the post-condition and usage restriction, but the undocumented confirm parameter keeps it from being complete.
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 sole parameter (confirm) is never mentioned in the description. The description says "use only when explicitly asked" but does not connect that to the confirm boolean that enforces it, leaving the safety gate undocumented.
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 ("Log out of ads.telegram.org"), far more precise than the bare title. It does not name which sibling to prefer instead, so differentiation from reload_session or revoke_token is only implied.
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 an explicit positive condition ("use only when explicitly asked") and an explicit exclusion ("Never use it to fix auth"), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for a destructive tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.