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.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "reason": "<reason>",
      "revocation_signature": "<revocation_signature>"
    },
    "name": "agentid_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: 8-128 printable ASCII characters (no spaces), client-generated, one per logical request — a UUID v4 is recommended; 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 changedNov 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Previous 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."New value: +"Optional idempotency key: 8-128 printable ASCII characters (no spaces), client-generated, one per logical request — a UUID v4 is recommended; 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."

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"

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds meaningfully beyond that with the cost and payment rail ($0.25 USDC on Base or Arbitrum One), the x402 v2 payment-signature requirement, and the finality implied by 'no successor.' It stops short of stating outright whether revocation is reversible or what happens to previously issued attestations, which is the one behavioral gap left for a destructive operation.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, and the sibling contrast follows immediately — good ordering. The payment sentences are dense but each carries non-obvious operational detail; the only friction is the somewhat awkward 'POST to paid_url' instruction, since paid_url is not actually a schema parameter and slightly blurs the invocation model.

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 the description fills the remaining gaps the structured fields cannot: price, payment protocol, endpoint URL, and the no-successor semantics. Completeness is only marginally short of 5 because finality/reversibility of retirement is never stated explicitly for what annotations mark as a destructive call.

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%, including a detailed revocation_signature spec and idempotency_key semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 baseline applies. The description's 'sign as the revocation_signature field specifies — who signs, and how' merely redirects to the schema rather than adding new meaning, and it does not surface the required reason or agent_id constraints in prose.

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?

The description leads with a specific verb and resource — 'Retire an Agent ID instantly, with no successor' — which is more precise than the title's 'Revoke'. It actively distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by noting that agentid_renew provides a 'fresh ID, same chain,' so an agent can choose between permanent retirement and rotation without opening 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?

It names the alternative (agentid_renew) and the condition that selects it — no successor versus replacement. It also spells out the invocation prerequisite (POST JSON to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header), but there is no explicit statement of when not to revoke, e.g. prerequisites such as holding the on-file revocation key are only implied via the signature parameter.

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.

Resources

Need Help?