Skip to main content
Glama

Breach402 Owner Protection

Revoke Owner Authorization

revoke_owner_email_authorization
DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke a pending or verified one-time owner authorization before it is consumed by a paid check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
poll_tokenYesPrivate polling capability proving control of the enrollment.
enrollment_idYesEnrollment identifier whose authorization should be revoked.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesFinal enrollment state.
enrollment_idYesRevoked verification enrollment identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / enrollment_id / description
      Added value: +"Enrollment identifier whose authorization should be revoked."
    • addedInput schema / properties / poll_token / description
      Added value: +"Private polling capability proving control of the enrollment."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "description": "Confirmation that the owner authorization was revoked.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "enrollment_id": {
      +      "description": "Revoked verification enrollment identifier.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "description": "Final enrollment state.",
      +      "enum": [
      +        "revoked"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "enrollment_id",
      +    "status"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it works on pending or verified states and relates to one-time authorizations, providing extra context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and concise with no wasted words. Every part adds value.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and context. With an output schema present and two required params, it provides sufficient information for agent usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear param descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter details, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 revokes a pending or verified one-time owner authorization, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_owner_email_verification or get_owner_email_verification_status.

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 provides context (before consumption by a paid check) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It implies the usage scenario effectively.

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.

Resources