qURL

Delete qURL

delete_qurl

DestructiveIdempotent

Instructions

Permanently revoke a qURL — the link and every access token under it stop working immediately. This action is irreversible. Use this when you want to cut off access entirely (compromised link, departed user, end-of-engagement). It does not revoke links minted by the upload tools, which belong to the file connector; those cannot be revoked from this server. Use update_qurl instead when you only need to shorten the resource's expiration, retag, or rename, and extend_qurl to keep a link open longer — those preserve the existing access tokens. Idempotent: the API returns 404 for re-deletes, never-existed IDs, and resources owned by another API key (ownership-mismatch is collapsed into 404 server-side to avoid existence disclosure); this tool swallows all three. Branch on was_already_revoked to distinguish the no-op case from a successful revoke on this call. When the ID came from user input and ownership matters, call get_qurl first — a 200 confirms ownership; a thrown 404 is equally ambiguous on that endpoint too. Returns a confirmation payload. By default the resource is excluded from list_qurls; pass status: "revoked" to see it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource_id`	Yes	The resource public key, CRID, or legacy r_ ID to revoke (all tokens; q_ display IDs are not accepted).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Human-readable confirmation message
`revoked`	Yes
`resource_id`	Yes
`was_already_revoked`	Yes	True when the API responded 404 (resource was already revoked or never existed). Agents that need to distinguish 'I revoked it' from 'it was already gone' should branch on this.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.1Sep 19, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedInput schema / properties / resource_id / description

Previous value: -"The resource ID (must start with r_). delete_qurl does not accept q_ (qURL display) IDs."New value: +"The resource public key, CRID, or legacy r_ ID to revoke (all tokens; q_ display IDs are not accepted)."

removedInput schema / properties / resource_id / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```

changedInput schema / properties / resource_id / pattern

Previous value: -"^r\\_"New value: +"^(r_[a-z0-9_-]{11}|(?:[A-Za-z0-9_-]{4}){27,53}|(?:[A-Za-z0-9_-]{4}){27,53}[A-Za-z0-9_-]{2}|(?:[A-Za-z0-9_-]{4}){26,52}[A-Za-z0-9_-]{3}|[a-z2-7]{47}|[a-z2-7]{60})$"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable confirmation message",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "resource_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "revoked": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "was_already_revoked": {
+      "description": "True when the API responded 404 (resource was already revoked or never existed). Agents that need to distinguish 'I revoked it' from 'it was already gone' should branch on this.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "resource_id",
+    "revoked",
+    "was_already_revoked",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Apr 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations by stating irreversibility, immediacy of revocation, and the exact idempotency semantics (404 for re-deletes, never-existed IDs, and ownership-mismatch; all swallowed). It discloses the was_already_revoked discrimination signal and an existence-disclosure design detail an agent could not infer from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the destructive effect and irreversibility notice before alternatives. The text is dense and long for one parameter, but each sentence carries operational weight (irreversibility, sibling routing, idempotency handling, ownership check, list visibility) rather than filler.

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, idempotent mutation with a schema-documented parameter and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: effect, reversibility, idempotency outcome branching, ownership caveat, and the post-delete visibility rule (excluded from list_qurls unless status: "revoked").

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there (public key / CRID / legacy r_ ID, q_ display IDs rejected), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful provenance context, noting that when the ID comes from user input and ownership matters the agent should verify via get_qurl because a 404 is equally ambiguous there.

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?

States a precise verb and scope: permanently revoke a qURL such that the link and every access token under it stop working immediately. It also carves out what it is not (links minted by upload tools / file connector) and names the sibling alternatives, so an agent can separate it from update_qurl, extend_qurl and token-level revocation without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given (compromised link, departed user, end-of-engagement) plus explicit when-not-to-use routing to update_qurl for expiration/retag/rename and extend_qurl for keeping a link open. It further adds a prerequisite path via get_qurl when the ID came from user input and ownership matters.

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

Deploy Server