Apiosk MCP Server

apiosk_delete_api

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete or deactivate a published API on Apiosk using signed wallet authentication to control availability.

Instructions

Delete or deactivate one of your published Apiosk APIs with signed wallet auth.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "apiosk_delete_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`wallet_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the requirement of wallet-signed auth but does not clarify whether deletion is permanent, whether deactivation is reversible, or what signed auth payload is needed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, target resource, and auth requirement with no filler or redundant restatement.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive two-parameter tool, the key facts are present (ownership, auth, action), and the output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the ambiguity between 'delete' and 'deactivate' and the absence of parameter-level guidance leave meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It hints that slug identifies a published API and wallet_id relates to signing, but it never names or maps the parameters, nor does it provide enough detail to compensate for the bare string schemas. This is only slightly more useful than the field names alone.

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 begins with specific verbs ('Delete or deactivate') and names the exact resource ('your published Apiosk APIs'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like apiosk_update_api, publish_api, and list_my_apis.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies the tool is for removing/deactivating one of the user's own published APIs, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over similar siblings such as unpublish_x402_route or state any exclusions. The usage context is clear, but alternatives are not mentioned.

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

Deploy Server