Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
0xarchive-mcp

0xarchive-mcp

by 0xArchiveIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

web3_revoke_key

Revoke an API key using a signed SIWE challenge and the key ID from web3_list_keys.

Instructions

Revoke a specific API key. Requires a fresh SIWE challenge signed with personal_sign. Use web3_list_keys first to get the key_id to 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": {
      "message": "<message>",
      "signature": "<signature>",
      "key_id": "<key_id>"
    },
    "name": "web3_revoke_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesThe SIWE message from web3_challenge
signatureYesHex-encoded signature from personal_sign (0x-prefixed, 65 bytes)
key_idYesUUID of the API key to revoke (from web3_list_keys)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesResult data object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). Description does not disclose consequences of revoking (e.g., irreversible, immediate effect, related permissions). With destructiveHint=false but action being destructive, description should clarify; it doesn't. Lacks behavioral context beyond basic action.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No redundant words, well-structured.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are documented. Description covers prerequisites and source of key_id. It could mention that revoking is irreversible or that it invalidates the key immediately, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description reiterates that key_id comes from web3_list_keys, which adds minor context, but does not explain message/signature further. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Revoke a specific API key' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like web3_list_keys (list), web3_challenge (auth), web3_signup, web3_subscribe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides prerequisites: 'Requires a fresh SIWE challenge signed with personal_sign' and 'Use web3_list_keys first to get the key_id'. Clearly tells the user what to do before invoking this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools