Skip to main content
Glama

delete_secret

Remove a specific secret by its ID from a secret manager (Vault, AWS, or GCP) using the APISIX-MCP server to enhance security and data management.

Instructions

Delete a secret by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYessecret id
managerYessecret manager type

Implementation Reference

  • Inline handler function for the 'delete_secret' tool. It calls makeAdminAPIRequest with DELETE method to remove the secret at `/secrets/{manager}/{id}`.
    server.tool("delete_secret", "Delete a secret by ID", DeleteSecretSchema.shape, async (args) => {
      return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/secrets/${args.manager}/${args.id}`, "DELETE");
    });
  • Zod input schema for 'delete_secret' tool requiring 'id' and 'manager' fields.
    export const DeleteSecretSchema = z.object({
      id: z.string().describe("secret id"),
      manager: SecretTypeSchema.describe("secret manager type"),
    });
  • Registration of the 'delete_secret' tool on the MCP server using server.tool().
    server.tool("delete_secret", "Delete a secret by ID", DeleteSecretSchema.shape, async (args) => {
      return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/secrets/${args.manager}/${args.id}`, "DELETE");
    });
  • Helper utility function used by the delete_secret handler to make HTTP requests to the admin API, including DELETE requests.
    export async function makeAdminAPIRequest(
      path: string,
      method: string = "GET",
      data?: object
    ): Promise<CallToolResult> {
      const baseUrl = `${APISIX_SERVER_HOST}:${APISIX_ADMIN_API_PORT}${APISIX_ADMIN_API_PREFIX}`;
      const url = `${baseUrl}${path}`;
    
      try {
        const response = await axios({
          method,
          url,
          data,
          headers: {
            "X-API-KEY": APISIX_ADMIN_KEY,
            "Content-Type": "application/json",
          },
        });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          console.error(`Request failed: ${method} ${url}`);
          console.error(
            `Status: ${error.response?.status}, Error: ${error.message}`
          );
    
          if (error.response?.data) {
            try {
              const stringifiedData = JSON.stringify(error.response.data);
              console.error(`Response data: ${stringifiedData}`);
            } catch {
              console.error(`Response data: [Cannot parse as JSON]`);
            }
          }
    
          return {
            isError: true,
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(
                  `Status: ${error.response?.status}\nMessage: ${error.message}
    Data:\n${JSON.stringify(error.response?.data || {}, null, 2)}`,
                  null,
                  2
                ),
              },
            ],
          };
        } else {
          return {
            isError: true,
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(error, null, 2),
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (permanence, permissions), usage context, or what happens after deletion. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more completeness is needed.

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?

The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'manager' parameter or its enum values. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters well, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured data.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a secret by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_credential' or 'delete_resource' that perform similar deletion operations on different resource types, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the secret ID), when deletion is appropriate, or how it differs from other deletion tools like 'delete_credential' or 'delete_resource' in the sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/api7/apisix-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server