VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

revoke_key

Idempotent

Revoke the key with prefix (from list_keys): it stops working, others keep working.

    Use to kill a leaked or old key. Args: prefix (the 12-char key prefix, e.g.
    vhg_sk_ab12), api_key (a DIFFERENT active key to authenticate this call).
    Returns {prefix, name, revoked, revoked_at, already_revoked}. You cannot revoke
    your LAST active key (create a replacement first). Requires the admin scope. Errors:
    unauthorized, forbidden, invalid_request (last key), not_found, rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prefix`	Yes	The 12-char key prefix to kill, copied from list_keys (e.g. vhg_sk_ab12), NOT the plaintext key. Revoking is idempotent; you cannot revoke your last active key.
`api_key`	No	API key for this call. Omit to fall back to the Authorization: Bearer / X-API-Key request header (streamable-HTTP only), then the VHGENGINE_API_KEY env var (the stdio default). No key resolvable -> unauthorized.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Its label.
`prefix`	No	The key that was revoked.
`revoked`	No	Whether the key is now revoked (true after a successful call).
`revoked_at`	No	When it was revoked, ISO-8601 UTC.
`already_revoked`	No	true when it was already revoked, i.e. this call changed nothing.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: revoking is idempotent, it requires a DIFFERENT active key for authentication, it returns a specific object, and it enumerates error conditions (unauthorized, forbidden, invalid_request for last key, not_found, rate_limited). This fully discloses the tool's behavior and side effects.

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?

The description is a compact block with all essential information: purpose, args, return, constraints, and errors. While it's somewhat dense, every sentence contributes; it could be structured with bullets for easier scanning but remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (revoking access), the description covers all necessary context: return format, error types, admin scope, last-key restriction, and authentication fallback. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain returns in more detail. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema by specifying that prefix comes from list_keys and is NOT the plaintext key, and that api_key must be a DIFFERENT active key. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke the key with `prefix`' and immediately clarifies the effect ('it stops working, others keep working'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_key or list_keys, and references list_keys as the source of the prefix.

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 states when to use: 'Use to kill a leaked or old key.' It also provides a key exclusion ('You cannot revoke your LAST active key (create a replacement first)') and notes the required admin scope, giving clear context for appropriate use.

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

All VHGENGINE 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources

Need Help?