Permanently removes a passkey by its ID, blocking authentication. This action cannot be undone; use list_passkeys to find IDs.
Permanently delete a passkey by passkey_id. The user will no longer be able to authenticate with this passkey. This cannot be undone. Use list_passkeys to find passkey_ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| passkey_id | Yes | A unique identifier for a passkey. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by spelling out the consequences: the passkey is permanently removed, the user can no longer authenticate with it, and the action is irreversible. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by consequences and the id-sourcing hint. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.
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 single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers action, permanence, consequence, and id discovery. Nothing further is needed to call it correctly and safely.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and there is only a single parameter, so the schema already documents passkey_id fully. The description adds the practical hint that ids come from list_passkeys, which is marginally useful but not new semantic detail about the parameter itself.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a passkey'), scoped by an explicit identifier. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by naming the passkey domain and the counterpart list_passkeys tool.
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?
Gives clear usage context and explicitly routes the agent to list_passkeys to obtain the required id. It does not state when deletion is inappropriate or warn about prior confirmation, but the destructive framing implies caution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.