Tronsave MCP Testnet

Revoke API Key

tronsave_revoke_api_key

DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke the caller's current internal API key. Side effect: any future request using the previous key is rejected. Existing in-flight sessions cached by the server may continue serving until their TTL expires — treat the effect as 'best-effort immediate' rather than guaranteed instantaneous cutoff. Idempotent — revoking an already-revoked key returns success. Requires a signature session and mcp-session-id. Call tronsave_generate_api_key afterwards to mint a replacement when continued internal access is needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	GraphQL mutation status code (HTTP-like; `0`/`200` indicates success). Always pair with `success` for routing.
`data`	Yes	For `generateApiKey`: the freshly issued internal API key — treat as SECRET, store securely. For `revokeApiKey`: server-defined confirmation string (no key material).
`message`	Yes	Human-readable status text. Populated even on success; localized error messages may appear here on failure.
`success`	Yes	Whether the mutation succeeded at the backend level. Always check this before reading `data`.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining the side effect (in-flight sessions may continue until TTL expiry, best-effort immediate) and reaffirms idempotency. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Four sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly tighter.

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?

Covers side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, and follow-up action. For a zero-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage), so no parameter documentation needed. Baseline score of 4 applies; description adds no extra param info but doesn't need to.

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?

Description clearly states the action: revoke the caller's current internal API key. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tronsave_generate_api_key which creates keys.

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?

Explicitly mentions requiring a signature session and mcp-session-id, and advises calling tronsave_generate_api_key afterwards for a replacement. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but provides clear context.

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

All Tronsave MCP Testnet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple order creation tools (tronsave_create_order, tronsave_internal_order_create, tronsave_internal_create_extend_request) and multiple estimation tools (tronsave_estimate_buy_resource, tronsave_get_min_price, tronsave_internal_order_estimate). This would confuse an agent trying to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools follow a tronsave_verb_noun pattern with snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent (e.g., list vs get, create vs register) and the internal_ prefix creates two distinct naming styles. Some tools like tronsave_internal_order_book and tronsave_list_order_books are confusingly similar.

Tool Count2/5

29 tools is excessive for a server focused on a single market. Many tools duplicate functionality for internal vs signature authentication, bloating the surface. A more streamlined set (e.g., 10-15) would be more appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core operations like CRUD for orders, account info, and auto-settings. However, there are gaps: no explicit delete for auto-sell settings, and manual sell is the only sell option. Some internal tools appear redundant, but overall coverage is adequate.

Resources

Need Help?