Deletes the current master API key from Bybit to revoke access.
Delete the current master 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_master_api_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Delete' which implies a destructive action, but without annotations, it does not disclose irreversibility, authentication requirements, or impact on other keys. Critical behavioral details are missing for a potentially risky operation.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be considered too minimal for its purpose, missing valuable context. It earns a 4 for efficiency but not a 5 due to lack of supporting details.
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?
Given the destructive nature of the tool, the description omits important context such as irreversible consequences, required permissions, or confirmation steps. The lack of annotations or output schema amplifies this deficiency, making the description incomplete for safe usage.
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 no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds no additional meaning. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description is adequate for parameter semantics.
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 clearly states 'Delete the current master API key,' specifying the verb (delete), resource (master API key), and scope (current). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like 'delete_sub_api_key' and 'modify_master_api_key'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'modify_master_api_key' or 'get_api_key_info'). There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or scenarios to avoid. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.