Delete an access key from a project by providing its ID. Removes the specified credential to prevent unauthorized access.
Delete an access key by ID.
Args: project_id: ID of the project key_id: ID of the access key to delete
Returns: Empty dict on success
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'Delete's, which is destructive, but does not clarify if the action is irreversible, what happens to dependent resources, or any permission requirements. This lack of context leaves the agent without important safety information.
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 very brief, containing only necessary elements: action, parameter list, and return value. It is front-loaded and efficient, though lack of formatting (e.g., headers) is negligible. No extra words are present.
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 simple delete tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and output adequately. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, but that can be inferred. The presence of an output schema (empty dict) reduces the need for return value detail.
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 description provides short explanations for each parameter ('ID of the project', 'ID of the access key to delete'), adding semantic value beyond the schema titles. However, given the 0% schema coverage, more detail (e.g., format or source) would improve usability. The current effort is adequate for simple integer IDs.
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 explicitly states 'Delete an access key by ID', providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_access_key' and 'list_access_keys' by the action, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_access_key' or when deletion is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or context for choosing this over other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.