Revoke an active delegation by ID, ending agent authority. Optionally cascade the revocation to all sub-delegations, ensuring complete removal of delegated trust. Include a reason for audit.
[OPERATOR] Revoke a delegation. Optionally cascade to all sub-delegations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Why the delegation is being revoked | |
| cascade | No | Also revoke all sub-delegations | |
| delegation_id | Yes | Delegation ID to revoke |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the destructive revocation action and cascade capability, but omits important behavioral details such as whether revocation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to dependent artifacts.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every element serves a purpose: the action, the resource, and the optional cascade behavior.
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 operator tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on revocation consequences, usage scenarios, and relationships to other delegation lifecycle tools.
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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only echoing the cascade behavior already documented in the schema parameter descriptions.
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 the action ('Revoke a delegation') and adds scope ('Optionally cascade to all sub-delegations'), distinguishing it from sibling creation, verification, and sub-delegation tools.
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 like supersede_v2_delegation or sub_delegate. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.