Revoke credential grant
broker.revoke-grantRevokes a broker grant by id and records the revocation to the ledger.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
MANDATE Credential Broker
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a meaningful behavioral detail: revocation is recorded to the ledger, implying an audit trail or permanence. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens to dependent grants or credentials.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then adds the key side effect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about usage, parameter semantics, and consequences. It mentions the ledger record but leaves out who can revoke, what inputs are needed, and whether the operation is reversible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description's 'by id' vaguely hints at the target, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'revoked_by_agent_id' or 'reason', and the supplied schema omits property definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Revokes') and resource ('broker grant'), and adds the side effect of recording to the ledger. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'mandate.revoke', but the resource and title make the target reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'mandate.revoke' or 'broker.introspect-grant'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues about which flow requires this revocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but broker.request-access and mandate.authorize-action both route through the Policy Engine and could be confused for the same intent. broker.revoke-grant and mandate.revoke are distinct in scope but similar in naming; descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
The domain-prefixed verb_noun pattern is mostly consistent, e.g. broker.register-credential, broker.revoke-grant, mandate.authorize-action. Minor deviations like broker.use and mandate.revoke are less explicit about their object, but they remain readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Eleven tools is well-scoped for a credential/mandate broker, covering issuance, delegation, access, revocation, and proof without redundancy. Each tool appears to earn its place in the workflow.
Completeness3/5
The core mandate lifecycle (mint, delegate, revoke) and grant flow (register, request, use, introspect, revoke) are covered, with no immediate dead ends. However, there is no query/list/status tool for existing mandates or credentials, and credential management lacks removal or rotation operations, which creates notable gaps for state discovery.