everyinfra_key_disableDisable any key on this account at once, for example one that leaked. Calls with it fail until the account owner enables it again in the console. Needs the keys:write account scope, which is off by default and can only be granted by the account owner in the console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes | From everyinfra_keys |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (keys:write scope, off by default, owner-granted only), the re-enable path (console, owner action), and the exact failure behavior for subsequent calls. This is the kind of preconditions an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint=false.
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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what happens after, and what is required. Front-loaded with the action and consequence before the scope caveat.
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?
Covers purpose, side effect, re-enable path, and the gatekeeping scope. Given one fully documented parameter and no output schema, nothing critical is missing, though a one-line contrast with everyinfra_key_delete would make the definition airtight.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single key_id parameter already documents its source ('From everyinfra_keys'). The description adds no param-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3.
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?
States a specific verb (disable) and resource (any key on this account), and distinguishes it from siblings like everyinfra_key_delete by noting the effect is temporary until the owner re-enables it. An agent can route correctly between disable/delete/update without opening a schema.
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?
Gives a clear use case ('for example one that leaked') and explains the consequence of calling it. It does not explicitly contrast with everyinfra_key_delete or everyinfra_key_update, so an agent choosing between disable and delete still has to infer.
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.