GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_auth_logout

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a stored GitFlic token to log out: clears the active account by default, a named account with --as, or all tokens and per-project bindings with --all.

Instructions

Remove a stored token. Default removes the active account. Pass --as to remove a specific named account. Pass --all to remove every token (and all per-project bindings).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitflic_auth_logout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as`	No	Remove only token:<name>
`all`	No	Remove every account + binding
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a no-argument call still deletes the active account's token, and --all also wipes per-project bindings, which is a side effect beyond "remove tokens".

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and default, with no filler. Minor friction: it uses CLI-style "--as"/"--all" notation while the actual parameters are named as/all, a small naming mismatch the agent must translate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter, fully documented, non-read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers all modes and the binding side effect. It stops short of noting consequences of deleting the active token (e.g., subsequent calls failing or requiring re-login).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and its property descriptions already cover "Remove only token:<name>" and "Remove every account + binding." The description's restatement of those flags adds only the small nuance that --all also clears bindings; the third parameter (raw) is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Remove a stored token" names a specific verb and resource, and the following sentences immediately disambiguate the three modes (default = active account, --as = named account, --all = everything). An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains which parameter selects which scope, which is useful mode-selection guidance, but it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling auth tools (gitflic_auth_unbind, gitflic_auth_switch, gitflic_auth_bind). The relationship to per-project bindings is only mentioned as a side effect, not as a routing rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server