gcp_delete_service_account_keyRevoke a Google Cloud service account key using its key ID and service account email to remove compromised or unused credentials from a project.
Revokes a service account key by its key id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| keyId | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | GCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'revokes' but does not state that deletion is permanent/unrecoverable, what permissions are required, or what happens to workloads using the key. For a destructive mutation, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted above.
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?
With 3 parameters, one required parameter (email) undocumented, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves real gaps: the agent knows what the tool does but not the effect, the auth requirements, or how email/keyId pair together.
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 only 33% (only projectId is described). The description clarifies keyId's meaning ('by its key id') but says nothing about the required email parameter, leaving the agent to infer both required inputs from bare names.
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 (revokes) and resource (service account key) with the discriminating identifier (key id). This clearly separates it from gcp_list_service_account_keys and gcp_create_service_account_key. Sibling differentiation is achieved implicitly through the verb, though no sibling is named.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning that key revocation is irreversible for any application still using the key. Only the barest action statement is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.