Timix.AI

delete_api_key

Permanently revoke one of your Integration API keys. Any MCP clients or integrations using the key will lose access immediately and cannot be restored. Returns a preview; re-call with the confirm_token and an idempotency_key to commit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key_id`	Yes	Id of the API key to permanently revoke.
`confirm_token`	No	Token returned by the preview (call this tool once with no token to get it). Required to commit; expires in ~10 minutes.
`idempotency_key`	No	Required when committing (confirm_token present): retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive, irreversible nature, immediate client access loss, preview requirement, confirm token expiration (10 min), and idempotency guarantee.

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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. First sentence states the irreversible action, second details the commit process. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Covers the two-step process, token expiration, and idempotency. Could briefly mention the preview return format, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation given the schema.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial context beyond the parameter descriptions: explains the preview-commit workflow, token purpose, expiration, and idempotency behavior, greatly aiding agent invocation.

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 clearly states the tool permanently revokes an Integration API key, a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling deletion tools by focusing on API keys.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains the two-step preview-commit process and that the action is irreversible. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the context is clear and there are no directly competing siblings.

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

All Timix.AI 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?