Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Remove Stored Credentials

remove_stored_credentials
Destructive

Delete a stored credential block from a local or global .env file. Preview the removal first, then confirm with execute=true for safe deletion.

Instructions

Preview and remove one stored credential block from a local/global .env file. Preview-first: the default call projects the removal and returns a plan_handle; call again with execute=true and that handle to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesStored target from list_stored_credentials, e.g. primary or connection_1.
executeNoPersist the reviewed removal (default false = preview only, writes nothing).
plan_handleNoPlan handle returned by the reviewed preview. Required for execute=true.
storage_scopeYesWhich .env file to modify.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / execute
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Persist the reviewed removal (default false = preview only, writes nothing).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / plan_handle
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Plan handle returned by the reviewed preview. Required for execute=true.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the two-phase preview/execute protocol and that the default call writes nothing — critical for a destructive tool. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the deletion is recoverable after execute.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the scope and the preview-first constraint front-loaded before the execute mechanics. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully notes that the preview returns a plan_handle, and it covers the full two-step lifecycle of a destructive operation. Minor omissions remain (where the credential source is discovered, post-execute recoverability), but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents target, execute, plan_handle and storage_scope, including the pattern and enum. The description restates the execute/plan_handle contract without adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (remove), a bounded resource (one stored credential block), and the location (.env file with local/global scope). It is clearly distinguishable from list_stored_credentials and import_apikey_credentials, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The preview-first workflow is spelled out concretely: default call projects the removal and returns a plan_handle, then a second call with execute=true and that handle deletes. It doesn't say when to prefer this over other credential-management tools, but the operational context for using it is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools