Revoke a lease. A compliant v2 gateway refuses the old offline token at recheck_by_ms (at most 30 seconds after issue/renewal), or earlier if it polls revocation. Revocation is not instantaneous.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lease_id | Yes | ||
| vigil_key | No | Legacy credential argument. Prefer the HTTP Authorization: Bearer header; omit this argument when that header authenticates the request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and adds valuable, non-obvious behavior: revocation is not instantaneous and old offline tokens remain valid until recheck_by_ms (at most 30 seconds). This gives the agent correct expectations about timing and eventual enforcement.
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?
Three concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by two relevant caveats that each earn their place.
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?
The description explains important timing behavior but omits any indication of return value, success/failure semantics, or prerequisites such as authorization. For a mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, this leaves a moderate gap.
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 only 50% because lease_id has no schema description. The tool description does not explain lease_id beyond the obvious 'revoke a lease' implication, and it adds nothing about vigil_key beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Revoke a lease') and clearly states the operation's purpose. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vigil_grant_lease or vigil_renew_lease, but the action is 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?
No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or what conditions require revocation. The description focuses on post-revocation behavior rather than selecting this tool vs alternatives.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains—receipts/notarization, leases, journals, watchdogs, and account management—and each tool has a distinct resource or action. Minor confusion is possible between vigil_anchor and vigil_anchors, or between the various verification tools, but the descriptions generally make the boundaries clear.
All tools share the vigil_ prefix and use snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: vigil_get_receipt and vigil_delete_watchdog use verb-first, while vigil_journal_get and vigil_journal_delete use resource-first. Several tools are also pure nouns (vigil_chain, vigil_usage, vigil_lease_status), making the overall pattern mixed but still readable.
At 26 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for a single MCP server, even though the tools cluster into several subsystems. Some status, info, and lease-listing tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing much capability.
The core lifecycle coverage is strong: receipts can be created, read, verified, and audited via the chain; leases have grant/renew/revoke/status/verify; journals have full CRUD; watchdogs have set/delete/status/heartbeat. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to update a watchdog without deleting and recreating it, but these are workable.