qURL

Delete qURL

delete_qurl

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently revoke a qURL and all its access tokens, stopping access immediately. Irreversible action for compromised links or departed users; returns confirmation and flags already-revoked cases.

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). Use update_qurl instead when you only need to shorten/extend the expiration, retag, or rename — those preserve the existing access tokens. Use extend_qurl when you only need to push the expiration out. 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

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

While annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds significant context: irreversibility, the 404-collapsing behavior for ownership-mismatch (avoiding existence disclosure), the branch on was_already_revoked, the effect on list_qurls, and the recommendation to verify ownership via get_qurl. This goes well beyond what annotations state.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries necessary information: core purpose first, then alternatives, then idempotency, ownership handling, return payload, and listing behavior. It is logically ordered and free of 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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior for an agent: purpose, usage conditions, idempotency edge cases, ownership implications, return payload indication, and post-revoke visibility. With an output schema present, the return details are appropriately summarized.

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%, and the schema's resource_id description already explains accepted ID formats and what it revokes. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 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 opens with a precise verb ('revoke') and resource ('qURL'), explains the immediate effect (link and all access tokens stop working), and explicitly contrasts with update_qurl and extend_qurl, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even without opening sibling schemas.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (compromised link, departed user, end-of-engagement) and names the exact alternatives (update_qurl for non-destructive edits, extend_qurl for expiration-only changes), leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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

Deploy Server