Verified Handles

Revoke an API key

revoke_api_key

DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke an API key: anything using it stops working at once, and it cannot be brought back (its owner makes a new one). One of your own account’s keys, or — with sub, and the permission to manage users — one of another account’s. The dry run lists the account’s keys (never more than a key’s public prefix) and says if it is the key this call is made with. Audited. Dry run by default; the real run needs confirm set to the key’s id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sub`	No	Another account’s id (`sub`), to revoke one of its keys. Left out: one of your own.
`key_id`	Yes	The key’s id, as the dry run lists it.
`confirm`	No	Needed with dry_run: false: this change’s exact target, as the dry run gives it in `confirm`.
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A dry run: what to do next to make the change, in words.
`result`	No	A real run: the route’s own answer, where the tool adds facts of its own beside it.
`confirm`	No	A dry run of a change that needs it: the exact target to send back as `confirm` with dry_run: false.
`dry_run`	No	true: a dry run, which wrote nothing. Absent from a real run.
`replayed`	No	A real run with an idempotency_key already used for this change: the first call’s answer, given back; nothing was written now.
`would_send`	No	A dry run: the exact request the real run would send (`method`, `path`, any `headers` such as an Idempotency-Key, and its `body`, `form` or `query`), or the requests, in order.
`may_edit_live`	No	A dry run of a live edit: whether this key’s account may edit this entry live.
`refused_because`	No	A dry run the real run would be refused for: why, in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing irreversibility ("cannot be brought back"), immediacy ("stops working at once"), audit logging, the dry-run-by-default posture, and what the dry run reveals (key list, no more than a public prefix, whether the key is the current caller's). This is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then scope, then the dry-run/confirm workflow. Dense with em-dashes and parentheticals, and the final sentence partially restates the schema's dry_run/confirm semantics, so it is informative but not maximally tight.

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?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers irreversibility, permissions, audit, and the dry-run-to-confirm workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing, and return-format detail is correctly delegated to the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the 3 baseline is already met by the schema. The description adds meaning the schema does not: `sub` implies a cross-account operation gated on "the permission to manage users," and it ties `confirm` concretely to the key's id rather than a generic target value.

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 and resource ("Revoke an API key") and immediately scopes the blast radius: anything using the key stops working and the key is unrecoverable. It also disambiguates the two target modes (your own key vs. another account's via `sub`), so an agent knows exactly what object is affected.

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?

Gives clear preconditions rather than alternatives: `sub` requires "the permission to manage users," and the real mutation requires the dry run first plus `confirm` set to the key's id. No sibling alternative is named, but no equivalent sibling exists in the toolset, so the contextual guidance is adequate.

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

All Verified Handles 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.