neuron_revoke_api_keyPermanently revoke an API key to immediately invalidate it and prevent further programmatic access. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| botId | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the bot that owns the API key | |
| keyId | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the API key to revoke |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'cannot be undone', reinforcing permanence, but adds limited additional behavioral 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, and contains no extraneous words. Highly efficient.
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 revocation tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the effect, permanence, and immediate action.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters, so it meets the baseline without enhancing semantics.
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 the strong verb 'revoke' and specifies 'permanently' and 'immediately invalidate'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like neuron_create_api_key and neuron_list_api_keys, as it focuses on revocation.
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 use when permanent invalidation is needed and notes irreversibility, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.