Revoke a CI runner by id: nothing is dispatched to it from now on, its next heartbeat is refused and it stops accepting jobs. Cannot be undone — register a new runner instead. Returns {id, revoked}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Runner id (from merjax_list_runners) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining precisely what is destroyed: dispatch stops, heartbeats are refused, job acceptance ends, and there is no reversal path. It also declares the return payload shape {id, revoked}, which no output schema provides.
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?
Two compact sentences: the first names the action and effects, the second carries the irreversibility warning and return shape. No filler, and the irreversible nature is placed prominently rather than buried.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, irreversibility, the substitute path, and the response shape. An agent has everything needed to decide and to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from merjax_list_runners. The description's 'by id' phrasing adds no new meaning beyond that baseline, so 3 is the appropriate ceiling for a fully documented one-param schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Revoke a CI runner by id') and enumerates the concrete effect: nothing is dispatched, next heartbeat is refused, jobs are no longer accepted. This is clearly distinguishable from merjax_list_runners (read) and merjax_create_runner_registration_token (provisioning) without opening any schema.
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?
Gives the key decision constraint — the action cannot be undone, so the alternative is to register a new runner instead — which steers an agent away from using this for temporary remediation. It stops short of naming explicit when-not cases (e.g. pausing vs revoking) or another sibling by exact name.
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.
