Skip to main content
Glama
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official

Revoke API key

revoke_api_key
Destructive

Permanently disables an API key using its ID, preventing further access. Use to revoke compromised or unused keys.

Instructions

Revoke an API key. This permanently disables the key and cannot be undone.

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": {
      "apiKeyId": "<apiKeyId>"
    },
    "name": "revoke_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyIdYesThe API key ID to revoke

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the crucial fact that the effect is permanent and cannot be undone, which is meaningful beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing immediate propagation or impact on existing integrations, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the irreversible-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential safety fact (permanence). Minor gaps remain around immediate effect and affected integrations, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single apiKeyId parameter, so the schema already fully documents the argument. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., where to obtain the ID), so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Revoke) and resource (API key), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling create_api_key, list_api_keys, and get_api_key tools. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, but the verb alone leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related API-key tools, no prerequisites stated (e.g., whether the key must exist or be active), and no note on what happens to in-flight requests. The only context is an irreversibility warning, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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