instabox-mcp

Revoke SSH tokens

instabox_revoke_ssh_tokens

Destructive

Revoke one SSH token by token ID or all SSH tokens for a machine, closing their active connections.

Instructions

Revoke one SSH token (give tokenId) or every token of the machine (omit it), closing their connections.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "instabox_revoke_ssh_tokens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Machine ID (m_...) or its unique name
`tokenId`	No	Token ID (cn_...); omit to revoke all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: revocation also closes the affected connections, which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what the response contains.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, then the two modes, then the side effect. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description says what it does, how scope is chosen, and the connection-closing consequence. It could mention that the action cannot be undone and whether an operation handle is returned, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents `id` (machine ID or unique name) and `tokenId` (omit to revoke all). The description restates the tokenId/omit-all semantics rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Revoke) and resource (SSH token) with both operating modes spelled out: a single token via `tokenId` or all tokens of the machine when omitted. An agent can immediately distinguish this from `instabox_create_ssh_token` and `instabox_list_ssh_tokens`.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly gives the selection rule that determines the tool's behavior: supply `tokenId` for one token, omit it for all tokens on the machine. It does not name sibling tools or state prerequisites, but the when-to-use branch for the two parameters is unambiguous.

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