Skip to main content
Glama
jamesbrink

MCP Server for Coroot

delete_api_key

Remove an API key from a Coroot project to revoke access. This permanent action deletes the specified key string using the project ID.

Instructions

Delete an API key.

Removes an API key from the project. This action cannot be undone.

Args: project_id: Project ID key: The API key to delete (the actual key string)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
keyYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function in CorootClient that executes the deletion by sending a POST request to the Coroot API endpoint /api/project/{project_id}/api_keys with action='delete' and the key.
    async def delete_api_key(self, project_id: str, key: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete an API key.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID.
            key: The API key to delete.
    
        Returns:
            Success status.
        """
        data = {"action": "delete", "key": key}
        response = await self._request(
            "POST",
            f"/api/project/{project_id}/api_keys",
            json=data,
        )
        return self._parse_json_response(response)
  • MCP tool registration using @mcp.tool() decorator, defines the tool schema via parameters (project_id: str, key: str) and docstring, thin wrapper calling the implementation.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_api_key(project_id: str, key: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete an API key.
    
        Removes an API key from the project. This action cannot be undone.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID
            key: The API key to delete (the actual key string)
        """
        return await delete_api_key_impl(project_id, key)  # type: ignore[no-any-return]
  • Server-side MCP tool handler implementation that calls the client.delete_api_key method and formats the success response.
    async def delete_api_key_impl(project_id: str, key: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete an API key."""
        await get_client().delete_api_key(project_id, key)
        return {
            "success": True,
            "message": "API key deleted successfully",
        }
Behavior4/5

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 effectively communicates critical traits: the action is irreversible ('This action cannot be undone'), which is essential for a destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second warns of irreversibility, and the 'Args' section efficiently lists parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, irreversibility, and parameter semantics well, but could improve by mentioning authentication needs or error cases, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explicitly documents both parameters in the 'Args' section, providing clear meanings: 'project_id' as 'Project ID' and 'key' as 'The API key to delete (the actual key string)'. This adds essential semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('an API key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_api_key' and 'list_api_keys'. It precisely identifies what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to remove an API key) and implicitly contrasts with sibling tools like 'create_api_key' and 'list_api_keys'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using 'list_api_keys' first to verify the key exists.

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/jamesbrink/mcp-coroot'

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