DeskCrew MCP Server

rotate_board_key

Revoke all existing board API keys and generate a fresh one when a key leaks or is lost. Requires board owner confirmation.

Instructions

Revoke all existing API keys for the board owned by the paying wallet and mint a fresh one. Use this if your board key leaked or was lost. The paying wallet must be the board owner. [price: $0.05]

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": {
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "rotate_board_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true. Rotating revokes every existing key for your board immediately.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the destructive nature (revoke all existing keys), the action (mint a fresh one), and a precondition. Adding detail about return value or effects on active integrations would improve transparency, but it is adequate for a sensitive operation.

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 sentences plus a price note, every word serves a purpose. Action verb first, condition second, prerequisite third. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, and a key prerequisite. It does not specify the return value (e.g., whether the new key is returned), but given the simplicity and common patterns, this is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter's schema already clearly states its purpose and behavior (must be true, immediate revocation). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('revoke', 'mint') and identifies the resource ('all existing API keys for the board'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_board or create_issue which deal with other resources.

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 states the trigger condition ('Use this if your board key leaked or was lost') and a prerequisite involving wallet ownership. Does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficiently narrow.

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