axiorank_revoke_agentPermanently revoke an agent: its API keys stop authenticating immediately (incident response). Irreversible. Issue a new agent to restore access. Its audit history is kept. Requires the agents:write scope. Prefer axiorank_quarantine_agent for a reversible pause.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | The agent's UUID (from axiorank_list_agents). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical details: immediate authentication stop, irreversibility, scope requirement (`agents:write`), and audit history preservation. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tightly packed sentences that front-load key information (irreversibility, immediate effect) and include alternatives. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all essential aspects: operation, side effects, prerequisites, and alternatives. Nothing missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, which already provides the source (`from axiorank_list_agents`).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Permanently revoke an agent' with specific consequences. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `axiorank_quarantine_agent` by contrasting irreversible vs reversible, making purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using `axiorank_quarantine_agent` for reversible pauses, providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use. It also frames the tool for 'incident response', giving context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of agent, policy, incident, and threat management with no overlap. Tools like axiorank_list_agents and axiorank_get_agent are differentiated by list vs. get, and quarantine vs. revoke serve different use cases.
All tools follow a consistent 'axiorank_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict tool names based on action and resource. No mixing of conventions or abbreviations.
With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive security governance domain. While slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, each tool serves a specific function and the count is justified by the breadth of features (agents, policies, incidents, scoring, verification, audit).
The tool surface covers agent and policy lifecycle (CRUD except delete), incident querying, scoring, verification, and audit. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for policies and incidents, and no way to update incident status. However, the core workflows are well-supported.