governance-platform

delete_api_key

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete one of the caller's API keys.

DESTRUCTIVE — agents using the deleted key will receive auth
errors immediately. The Blueprint a key was tied to (if any) is
NOT affected; only the credential is revoked. To delete a
Blueprint and all its keys, use delete_blueprint.

The target key can be specified two ways:
  - As the full key string (gai_...).
  - As a key_id (SHA-256 hash from list_api_keys).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`api_key`	Yes	GeodesicAI API key (gai_...)
`confirm`	No	Must be true to confirm this irreversible action
`key_to_delete`	Yes	The gai_ key to delete

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description warns that agents using the deleted key will receive auth errors immediately, and clarifies that the associated Blueprint is NOT affected. This gives critical operational context about consequences and side effects that annotations alone do not convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence earns its place: purpose stated first, then destructive warning, then alternative tool, then parameter specification. The formatting with dashes and line breaks makes it scannable with no redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, side effects, alternative tool, and parameter disambiguation. The confirm parameter is already fully described in the schema, so its absence in the description is acceptable. This is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'key_to_delete' can be either the full 'gai_' string or a key_id (SHA-256 hash from list_api_keys). This is not evident from the schema field description 'The gai_ key to delete' and directly aids correct parameter usage.

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?

The description opens with 'Permanently delete one of the caller's API keys', using a specific verb and resource that clearly states the action and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool delete_blueprint by noting that deleting a Blueprint with its keys is a separate operation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: to delete just a credential, use this tool; to delete a Blueprint and all its keys, use delete_blueprint. It also clarifies the two acceptable forms for specifying the target key (full key string or key_id from list_api_keys), leaving no ambiguity.

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

All governance-platform tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several pairs overlap heavily (validate vs validate_repair, repair vs repair_path, analyze_anomaly vs check_drift vs decompose_failure). Detailed descriptions help disambiguate, but the large number of analytics and diagnostics tools creates real selection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_blueprint, list_api_keys, verify_certificate). A few single-word or noun-phrase exceptions (validate, forecast, structural_types, recent_inference_decisions) are minor deviations, but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 37 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the governance domain is broad, the set could be consolidated (e.g., merging validate_repair into validate, folding repair_path into repair, or trimming diagnostics-tier tools like check_realization and geometric_confidence).

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full blueprint lifecycle, validation, repair, API key management, discovery, inference governance, and chain management. Minor gaps exist: no direct get_blueprint (only list with counts), and chain lifecycle lacks delete/list/cancel operations. Overall, agents can accomplish core governance tasks without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?