Apiosk MCP Server

apiosk_delete_wallet_api_key

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a managed wallet API key permanently to revoke access and prevent unauthorized use.

Instructions

Delete an existing managed wallet API key permanently.

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": {
      "wallet_id": "<wallet_id>",
      "key_id": "<key_id>"
    },
    "name": "apiosk_delete_wallet_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key_id`	Yes
`wallet_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotation already marks the operation as destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'permanently,' clearly signaling irreversibility to the agent. This adds useful context beyond the raw destructiveHint flag, though it does not mention authorization requirements or cascading effects.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It expresses the operation, the resource, and an important qualifier ('permanently') efficiently.

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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations and output schema provide adequate calling context. It lacks usage guidance and parameter details, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the impact of those omissions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain wallet_id or key_id at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the absence of any schema-level documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('managed wallet API key') with the qualifier 'permanently.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list/create/update API-key tools by naming the delete operation explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apiosk_list_wallet_api_keys, apiosk_create_wallet_api_key, or apiosk_update_wallet_api_key. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server