Deletes the team account plus all projects and vaults. Requires X-API-Key (existing users can generate an API key in the web app). If headers aren't supported, pass api_key in arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional API key for clients that cannot set X-API-Key headers. | |
| confirm | Yes | Set true to confirm deletion. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive scope (account, projects, vaults), the required X-API-Key authentication, and the api_key parameter fallback. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and auth context an agent needs.
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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, authentication, and parameter fallback. The destructive scope is front-loaded, so an agent immediately grasps the consequence before considering invocation.
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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical invocation concerns: what is deleted, how to authenticate, and how to pass the key when headers are unavailable. The confirm requirement is available in the schema, so nothing needed for a correct call is missing.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when to use the optional api_key parameter (when headers aren't supported), which goes beyond the schema's 'Optional API key' text. The confirm parameter is already fully documented in the 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?
The description opens with the specific verb 'Deletes' and names the exact resource: 'team account plus all projects and vaults.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_project and delete-code-vault by emphasizing the broad destructive scope.
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 provides clear operational context by stating the authentication requirement and the fallback for clients that cannot set headers. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope language ('plus all projects and vaults') makes the tool's role evident.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct by resource and action, but the three get-code-vault-* variants (summary, results, reports) plus get_vault create a cluster of similar-sounding retrieval tools. The use of both 'vault' and 'code-vault' in names increases the chance of misselection, though descriptions do clarify the differences.
Naming convention is inconsistent: snake_case (create_account, get_vault, list_projects) is mixed with kebab-case (create-code-vault, get-code-vault-summary, reanalyze-code-vault). The same concept is referred to as 'vault' and 'code-vault' across tool names, breaking predictability.
At 16 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for the domain covering accounts, projects, vaults, and analysis retrieval. The count is justified by the distinct resources and operations, though a few vault-related tools could potentially be consolidated.
The server provides solid lifecycle coverage: account create/get/delete, project CRUD (minus update), vault create/read/delete/reanalyze, plus API key rotation. Minor gaps exist, such as no update methods for accounts or projects, but the core workflows are well-supported without dead ends.
