agent-embassy

Agent ID — Revoke

agentid_revoke

Idempotent

Use agentid_revoke to retire an Agent ID instantly. revocation_signature: hex signature over the message agent-id-revoke: (64-char lowercase ID). EIP-191: personal_sign the message string (envelope required; raw ECDSA fails), 0x 65-byte hex, matched to the principal's revocation key. ed25519: nacl.sign.detached, 64-byte hex. Signer: principal or Embassy-for-cause. POST the tool inputs as JSON to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. See https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/x402 Paid tool — $0.25, USDC on Base or Arbitrum One. Paid URL: https://aemb.pro/v1/agent-id/revoke.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	Yes	Why the Agent ID is being retired (required, max 500 characters)
`agent_id`	Yes	The Agent ID string returned at issuance (64 hex characters; case-insensitive). Unknown IDs are rejected
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional idempotency key: UUID v4 (client-generated; published example keys are rejected). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: the same key on another tool — or from another wallet — is unrelated.
`revocation_signature`	Yes	Hex signature over the exact UTF-8 message agent-id-revoke:<agent_id> (64-char lowercase ID, no trailing newline). EIP-191: personal_sign the message STRING (personal_sign envelope REQUIRED — raw ECDSA will not verify), 0x 65-byte hex r\|\|s\|\|v (v=27/28). ed25519: nacl.sign.detached over the message bytes, 64-byte hex. Signer: the principal's on-file revocation key, or the Embassy signer for cause

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`how`	Yes	How to pay: POST the tool inputs as JSON to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header
`tool`	Yes	Tool name, e.g. verified_check
`asset`	Yes	Settlement asset
`price`	Yes	Exact price, e.g. "$0.15"
`networks`	Yes	EVM CAIP-2 network ids accepted
`paid_url`	Yes	x402-paid HTTPS URL to POST the tool inputs to
`facilitator`	Yes	x402 facilitator
`payment_required`	Yes	Always true: this MCP tool is a payment pointer; the tool itself is monetized via x402.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 26, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / agent_wallet

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Dev mode only: declares the account wallet (string, min 20 chars) when no x402 payment is present. Ignored in live mode — there the wallet is recovered from the verified payment authorization.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Previous value: -"Optional idempotency key: any non-empty string (a UUID is recommended; no format is enforced). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool: the same key on another tool is unrelated."New value: +"Optional idempotency key: UUID v4 (client-generated; published example keys are rejected). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: the same key on another tool — or from another wallet — is unrelated."

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description

Added value: +"The Agent ID string returned at issuance (64 hex characters; case-insensitive). Unknown IDs are rejected"

changedInput schema / properties / agent_wallet / description

Previous value: -"dev mode only"New value: +"Dev mode only: declares the account wallet (string, min 20 chars) when no x402 payment is present. Ignored in live mode — there the wallet is recovered from the verified payment authorization."

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Added value: +"Optional idempotency key: any non-empty string (a UUID is recommended; no format is enforced). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool: the same key on another tool is unrelated."

addedInput schema / properties / reason / description

Added value: +"Why the Agent ID is being retired (required, max 500 characters)"

addedInput schema / properties / revocation_signature / description

Added value: +"Hex signature over the exact UTF-8 message agent-id-revoke:<agent_id> (64-char lowercase ID, no trailing newline). EIP-191: personal_sign the message STRING (personal_sign envelope REQUIRED — raw ECDSA will not verify), 0x 65-byte hex r||s||v (v=27/28). ed25519: nacl.sign.detached over the message bytes, 64-byte hex. Signer: the principal's on-file revocation key, or the Embassy signer for cause"

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotency (idempotentHint true). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a paid tool ($0.25), requires a specific payment header, and details the signing requirements (EIP-191 vs ed25519, signer roles). It also clarifies the 'instantly' effect, though it does not fully explain post-revocation behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph that mixes purpose, signing instructions, payment details, and a URL. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the volume of technical detail makes it less scannable. Some information (e.g., exact URL, cost) could be structured better, though the content is necessary for correct invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (signature generation, payment, idempotency), the description covers the essential invocation details: payment cost and URL, required header, signature formats, and signer roles. It does not describe return values, but an output schema exists (has output schema: true), so that is acceptable. It also omits error cases, but the provided information is sufficient for a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions already cover all four parameters (100% coverage) with details on format and constraints. The description further clarifies revocation_signature by explaining the two supported signature schemes and the signer authority, adding meaning beyond the schema. It also reiterates the idempotency behavior via the parameter description. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Use agentid_revoke to retire an Agent ID instantly,' a specific verb (retire) and resource (Agent ID). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agentid_issue and agentid_renew, which serve different lifecycle purposes. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose makes it obvious when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. It does not mention that renewal or verification should not be used for revocation. The context of retiring an Agent ID is implied, but explicit routing to alternatives is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agent-embassy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.