Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apc-agent

apc-agent

by J8k3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_alias

Remove an unnecessary alias from AWS Payment Cryptography without affecting the underlying key. Keep key references clean by deleting only the friendly name.

Instructions

Call this when removing a friendly name that is no longer needed. The underlying key is unaffected.

Delete an alias (does not delete the underlying key).

Args: alias_name: Full alias name including 'alias/' prefix

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": {
      "alias_name": "<alias_name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_alias"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alias_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the underlying key is unaffected, which is the most important safety-relevant behavior for a delete operation. It does not mention permissions or irreversibility, but addresses the primary risk.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the usage trigger. There is minor redundancy: 'The underlying key is unaffected' and 'does not delete the underlying key' convey the same information twice.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, the parameter format, and the key behavioral guarantee. The lack of an output schema is acceptable here since the main side effect is clearly disclosed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only provides the parameter name and type string, while the description adds the essential requirement that alias_name must be the full alias including the 'alias/' prefix. This is critical operational detail the schema lacks.

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 operation: deleting an alias, and explicitly notes that it is a friendly name removal rather than key deletion. This distinguishes it from sibling tool delete_key.

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 opening line 'Call this when removing a friendly name that is no longer needed' provides a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly name delete_key as the alternative, but the statement that the underlying key is unaffected implies the distinction.

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