Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Revoke a board API key

pc_delete_board_api_keys_by_key_id
DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke a board API key by providing its key ID. This action permanently removes the key to control access.

Instructions

Revoke a board API key

Paperclip operation: DELETE /api/board-api-keys/{keyId}. Authorization class: board.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "pc_delete_board_api_keys_by_key_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional JSON compatibility payload. The source OpenAPI operation does not declare a request schema.
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
headersYes
encodingYes
status_codeYes
content_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the HTTP method (DELETE) and authorization class ('board'), providing some additional context. However, it does not explain side effects or irreversible nature beyond annotation hints.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences), with the purpose stated first. It is concise but sacrifices completeness for brevity. No extraneous information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks critical context for a destructive tool: no mention of irreversibility, required permissions beyond 'board' class, or post-revocation effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the optional body parameter is unexplained.

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 50% schema coverage, the description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema. It mentions '{keyId}' in the endpoint but does not explain what keyId represents or the optional 'body' parameter. No parameter descriptions are provided in the text.

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 title and first sentence clearly state 'Revoke a board API key,' specifying the verb (revoke) and resource (board API key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_get_board_api_keys (list) and pc_post_board_api_keys (create).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and endpoint alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools