Skip to main content
Glama

Turn off a request link

revoke_spec_link
Destructive

Turns off a shared request link. The request and its results stay.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "spec_id": "<spec_id>",
      "link_id": "<link_id>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_spec_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
link_idYes
spec_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the request and its results remain, which refines what 'turns off' means. However, it does not explain reversibility, permissions, or whether the link itself is permanently disabled.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the key preservation detail. There is no unnecessary wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter revocation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect and data retention. It is still incomplete because it omits both required parameters and does not clarify whether the action can be undone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain spec_id or link_id at all. With two required parameters, it leaves the agent to infer that spec_id identifies the request and link_id identifies the shared link.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: turning off a shared request link, and clarifies persistence of the request/results. It is clear enough to distinguish from create_spec_link, though the wording 'request link' versus 'spec link' could be more precise.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related tools such as revoke_share or create_spec_link. The purpose implies a revocation action, but the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.