agent-embassy

Agent ID — Revoke

agentid_revoke

DestructiveIdempotent

Retire an Agent ID instantly, with no successor: sign as the revocation_signature field specifies — who signs, and how. Fresh ID, same chain: agentid_renew. 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

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

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. check_url_custom
`asset`	Yes	Settlement asset
`price`	Yes	Exact price, e.g. "$0.25"
`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.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / price / description
```
Previous value: -"Exact price, e.g. \"$0.05\""New value: +"Exact price, e.g. \"$0.25\""
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / tool / description
```
Previous value: -"Tool name, e.g. ping"New value: +"Tool name, e.g. check_url_custom"
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / price / description
```
Previous value: -"Exact price, e.g. \"$0.15\""New value: +"Exact price, e.g. \"$0.05\""
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / tool / description
```
Previous value: -"Tool name, e.g. verified_check"New value: +"Tool name, e.g. ping"
```

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it is a paid call ($0.25 USDC on Base or Arbitrum One) requiring an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header and a JSON POST to a specific URL. It stops short of saying what is destroyed downstream (credentials, attestations) upon retirement.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and the renew alternative are front-loaded in the first two clauses, and payment mechanics come after. A couple of fragments ("who signs, and how" and the signer pointer that merely redirects to the schema) pad the middle slightly without earning their place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. The description still covers transport, payment, auth header and the docs link — only the post-revocation consequences are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a destructive tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are already thorough (signature envelope, idempotency scoping, ID format). The description only gestures at the signature ("sign as the revocation_signature field specifies — who signs, and how"), adding no format or signer detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Retire an Agent ID instantly, with no successor" names a specific verb and resource plus a decisive scope qualifier (no successor). It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling agentid_renew ("Fresh ID, same chain"), so an agent can pick between the two without reading either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The revoke-vs-renew split is stated: revoke leaves no successor, renew gives a fresh ID on the same chain. That is real routing guidance, but there is no explicit statement of preconditions (e.g., when revocation is warranted, what happens to dependents) or exclusions beyond the single sibling comparison.

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.