DUAL MCP Server

Delete API Key

dual_delete_api_key

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently revoke and delete an API key from the DUAL Web3 Operating System to manage access and security.

Instructions

Permanently revoke and delete an API key.

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": {
      "api_key_id": "<api_key_id>"
    },
    "name": "dual_delete_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key_id`	Yes	Resource ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by specifying 'permanently' (emphasizing irreversibility) and 'revoke' (implying access termination), which provides useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth requirements.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action ('permanently revoke and delete'). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is minimally complete. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., success confirmation or error messages), leaving some gaps in context.

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%, with the parameter 'api_key_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description does not add further meaning or clarify the ID format (e.g., UUID), so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('permanently revoke and delete') and the resource ('an API key'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dual_create_api_key' and 'dual_list_api_keys' by focusing on deletion rather than creation or listing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for cleanup, security, or error correction. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access) or exclusions (e.g., not for temporary deactivation), leaving usage unclear.

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

Deploy Server