Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Veilfile

by io.github.veilfile
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Revoke a file

revoke_artifact
DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke a file by its id. Its link stops working at once and the file is deleted. The result is revoked: true, or revoked: false when this workspace has no file with that id. If storage could not be reached, the result adds storage_deleted: false and a later sweep finishes the deletion. Repeating the call is harmless.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThis is the id of the file to revoke, a UUID. Both upload_artifact and list_artifacts return it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent, but the description goes further: immediate link invalidation, permanent deletion, a not-found outcome returning revoked: false, and a partial-failure state where storage is unreachable and a later sweep completes deletion. That is genuine context about what gets destroyed and how failures surface.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, with failure semantics after. 'Repeating the call is harmless' slightly duplicates the idempotent annotation, but it translates the hint into plain language, so it still earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so fully: the revoked flag, its false case, and the storage_deleted flag. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the single parameter, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already explains the UUID format and where the id comes from. The description only restates 'by its id', adding no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (file) plus the lookup key (id), and makes the effect explicit ('link stops working at once and the file is deleted'). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling upload/list/URL tools.

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?

Implies when to use it (to take down an existing file, using an id returned by upload_artifact or list_artifacts) and covers repeat invocation as harmless. It doesn't name an alternative, but the siblings listed are upload/list tools with no overlapping revocation role, so there is little to route between.

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

All Veilfile toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources