Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LinkPilot MCP Server

LinkPilot MCP Server

Official
by TetraCoreHQ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Revoke a secret link

revoke_secret
DestructiveIdempotent

Destroy a secret link immediately so it can never be opened. Use when a secret was shared by mistake or is no longer needed.

Instructions

Destroy a secret link immediately so it can never be opened. Irreversible. Use it when a secret was shared by mistake or is no longer needed.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe secret's id, from create_secret_link or list_secrets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds value by spelling out the concrete effect ('immediately', 'can never be opened', 'Irreversible'), which tells the agent what actually happens rather than just that it is destructive.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: effect, irreversibility, then usage condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it is irreversible, and when to use it. It could add a note on repeated invocation behavior, but annotations largely cover idempotency.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the sole 'id' parameter and where to obtain it (create_secret_link or list_secrets). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so this is the standard baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (destroy/revoke) and resource (secret link) plus the concrete consequence ('can never be opened'). This clearly separates it from siblings like create_secret_link and list_secrets, which act on a different lifecycle stage.

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?

'Use it when a secret was shared by mistake or is no longer needed' gives explicit trigger conditions for invoking the tool. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but the resource is distinct enough that alternatives are not ambiguous.

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