agentcard

revoke_connection

DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke a third-party app's access to the user's Agentcard account. Disconnects the app and invalidates its OAuth tokens; it must reconnect via OAuth to regain access. Pass the clientId shown by list_connections.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client_id`	Yes	The OAuth client ID of the app to revoke (from list_connections).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Result status: "revoked" when tokens were invalidated, "not_connected" when the app had no active access.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable outcome.
`revoked`	No	Number of OAuth tokens that were revoked.
`clientId`	No	The client ID that was revoked.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the action is destructive (aligning with destructiveHint=true) and adds details beyond annotations: it invalidates tokens and requires reconnection via OAuth. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant information. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, full schema coverage, output schema present), the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter source completely. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the source of the client ID ('from list_connections'), which helps the agent determine the correct 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Revoke a third-party app's access'), the resource (user's Agentcard account), and the mechanism ('Disconnects the app and invalidates its OAuth tokens'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_connections by specifying the required input source.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to 'Pass the clientId shown by list_connections', providing clear usage guidance. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the context of revoking access versus other actions is clear.

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

All agentcard 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially in areas like card management and shopping. However, the KYC flow has multiple overlapping tools (start_kyc, get_kyc_status, check_kyc_document, submit_kyc_document, submit_kyc_fields) that could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_funds, create_card, list_cards). A few exceptions like surprise_me and whoami break the pattern but are still intuitive overall.

Tool Count3/5

50 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the broad domain (cards, shopping, KYC, support, settings) partially justifies it. Some tools could be merged (e.g., KYC flow tools) without losing clarity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: CRUD for cards, transactions, KYC, support, shopping, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_card general, no cancel order in shopping), but overall the set is comprehensive for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?