revoke_api_keyRevoke an API key (soft — it stops working but stays listed as revoked).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | API key ID (from list_api_keys) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation that the key was revoked and no longer authenticates. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Confirmation that the key was revoked and no longer authenticates."
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that the key remains listed but stops working, which is beyond the annotations. It explains the soft-revocation effect clearly, adding context without contradicting the destructive hint.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a parenthetical clarification. No wasted words, perfectly structured.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It clearly communicates the behavioral effect and any prerequisites (id from list_api_keys) are covered by the schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is fully described with 'API key ID (from list_api_keys)'. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'API key', with a specific effect ('stops working but stays listed as revoked'). It distinguishes itself from a hard delete by labeling it 'soft', making the 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 implies a distinction from delete_api_key by using 'soft', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over deletion or mention alternatives. The 'soft' hint suggests a non-permanent action, but no direct guidance on selection criteria is provided.
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.