revoke_tokenRevokes and regenerates the cabinet API token for IP whitelisting, excluding ads cookies. Use only when explicitly requested; never to fix authentication.
Revoke and regenerate the cabinet API (IP-whitelist) token, not the ads cookies. Destructive; use only when the user asks. 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, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the two-step revoke-and-regenerate behavior and warns against using it as an auth fix. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether regeneration is immediate/irreversible.
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 tight sentences, front-loading the operation and scope before the usage constraints. No filler; every clause earns its 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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers what happens, when to use it, and when not to. The only material omission is semantics of the confirm parameter, which is minor against annotations that already carry the safety profile.
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 single 'confirm' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'use only when the user asks' loosely gestures at a confirmation gate but does not explain that confirm must be set true or what happens under the default of false, so the description does not compensate 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?
States a precise verb (revoke/regenerate), the exact resource (cabinet API IP-whitelist token), and explicitly scopes out a look-alike ('not the ads cookies'). An agent can distinguish this from save_api_settings or log_out without opening any schema.
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 explicit when ('use only when the user asks') and when-not ('never use it to fix auth') guidance. This is exactly the kind of routing and exclusion an agent needs for a destructive operation, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.