Skip to main content
Glama

venice_delete_api_key

Remove an API key from the Venice AI platform to manage access and security by specifying the key ID.

Instructions

Delete an API key

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_idYesThe API key ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Registers the venice_delete_api_key MCP tool with its schema and inline handler function.
    server.tool(
      "venice_delete_api_key",
      "Delete an API key",
      { key_id: z.string().describe("The API key ID to delete") },
      async ({ key_id }) => {
        const response = await veniceAPI(`/api_keys/${key_id}`, { method: "DELETE" });
        if (!response.ok) {
          const data = await response.json() as { error?: { message?: string } };
          return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${data.error?.message || response.statusText}` }] };
        }
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `✓ Deleted API key: ${key_id}` }] };
      }
    );
  • The handler function executes the DELETE request to the Venice API to delete the specified API key and returns success or error message.
    async ({ key_id }) => {
      const response = await veniceAPI(`/api_keys/${key_id}`, { method: "DELETE" });
      if (!response.ok) {
        const data = await response.json() as { error?: { message?: string } };
        return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${data.error?.message || response.statusText}` }] };
      }
      return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `✓ Deleted API key: ${key_id}` }] };
  • Zod schema for the tool input parameter 'key_id'.
    { key_id: z.string().describe("The API key ID to delete") },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but fails to mention critical details like whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., revoking access), or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, error handling), usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe agent invocation without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'key_id' clearly documented as 'The API key ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 the resource ('an API key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'venice_list_api_keys' or 'venice_retrieve_api_key' beyond the obvious action difference, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'venice_list_api_keys' for viewing keys or 'venice_create_api_key' for creating new ones. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing key ID, or warnings about irreversible deletion.

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

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/georgeglarson/venice-mcp'

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