Remove API keys from Datadog to manage access control and maintain security by revoking unnecessary or compromised credentials.
Delete an API key.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "delete_api_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Delete an API key' which implies a destructive mutation operation, but provides no behavioral context beyond this. With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical information like whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits/constraints. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is severely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there's confirmation, what type of API key is targeted, or any error conditions. While concise, it fails to provide the necessary context for safe and correct usage of a potentially dangerous operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation (none required). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies this is a simple operation without input parameters beyond perhaps implicit context. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an API key' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (API key), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (like delete_application_key, delete_current_user_application_key, etc.), which would require specifying what type of API key this targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar delete operations on different resources, there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this specific API key deletion tool is appropriate versus other key management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.