metrecept-opensource

Core: Unregister API service

metrecept_unregister_api_service

Removes a tenant's registered third-party API service so it can no longer be called, enabling retirement of vendor integrations. Destructive and immediate; no undo.

Instructions

Unregister one of the tenant's third-party API services so metrecept_call_api can no longer reach it. Use it to retire a vendor integration; check exact names with metrecept_list_api_services. Not for changing settings: re-register the same name with metrecept_register_api_service. Destructive and immediate, no undo, though no credential is lost because none is stored. Later calls and repeat unregisters return 404 service_not_found; 404 feature_disabled means API passthrough is off. Not billed. Requires a Metrecept API key (METRECEPT_API_KEY env on stdio, or Authorization: Bearer on remote HTTP); results are scoped to that key's tenant only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Registered service name to remove, e.g. "vehicle_data" ([a-z0-9_-]{1,64}).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.1Oct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Registered service name to remove, e.g. \"vehicle_data\" ([a-z0-9_-]{1,64})."

Addedv0.1.4Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: destructive and immediate, no undo, no credential loss, 404 error meanings, no billing, authentication requirements, and tenant scoping. These details materially reduce the risk of incorrect invocation.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by alternatives, destructive behavior, error semantics, billing, and auth. Despite being fairly long, every sentence provides operational information needed for a safe destructive call.

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

Completeness5/5

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, one fully documented parameter, and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, alternatives, destruction semantics, error outcomes, billing, auth, and tenant scope.

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 single name parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and example. The description adds a useful operational note to verify exact names via metrecept_list_api_services, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (unregister an API service), names the tenant scope, and explains the resulting effect on metrecept_call_api. It also distinguishes the tool from metrecept_list_api_services and metrecept_register_api_service.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use it (retiring a vendor integration) and when not to use it (changing settings; re-register instead). It also directs the agent to metrecept_list_api_services to verify exact names before calling.

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