Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

remove_recipient_public_key

Destructive

Remove a recipient's public GPG key to disable encryption for that recipient. Use the recipient's UUID to identify and delete the key.

Instructions

Remove a recipient's public GPG key (this also turns off encryption for it).

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": {
      "recipient_id": "<recipient_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_recipient_public_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recipient_idYesThe id (UUID) of the item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing a non-obvious side effect — encryption is turned off for the recipient — but omits whether removal is reversible or whether it errors when no key exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the important side effect in a parenthetical. Compact with zero wasted wording, though the parenthetical would be clearer stated as a full clause.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies what is missing operationally — the encryption side effect. Only edge-case behavior (missing key, reversibility) is unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter, recipient_id, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage as 'the id (UUID) of the item'. The description adds no meaning about which recipient identifiers are accepted, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Remove a recipient's public GPG key'. It clearly identifies the operation and, by naming the resource precisely, distinguishes it from the inverse sibling add_recipient_public_key without needing an explicit callout.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the recipient has no key). The agent must infer usage purely from the operation name.

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