revoke_linkRevoke the active secret code and capability token while keeping owner access intact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Label of the link whose credentials should be revoked. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what gets destroyed (active secret code and capability token) and what is preserved (owner access). This helps the agent anticipate the consequence of invoking the tool, though it does not state reversibility or implications for existing sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that delivers the action, the target, and the key side effect with no filler. Everything included is necessary and useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter, destructive tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It identifies the label input, the action, and the outcome regarding owner access, leaving no critical ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as the label of the link whose credentials should be revoked. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail such as formats, examples, or allowed values, so the schema carries the full burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('revoke'), the target resource ('the active secret code and capability token'), and the preservation effect ('keeping owner access intact'). This makes it easily distinguibile from siblings like renew_link or protect_link, since it is uniquely about invalidating credentials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'revoke the active secret code and capability token while keeping owner access intact' provides clear context for when this should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended scenario is obvious: the agent should call this when link credentials need to be revoked without affecting owner privileges.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct actions: account_status is account-level, links is inventory, serve/stop_remote are publish/unpublish, and the protection tools form a clear lifecycle. The only possible confusion is revoke_link versus unprotect_link, since both invalidate access in different ways, but the descriptions distinguish them well.
The link-mutation tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link. However, account_status and links are noun-only, serve is a bare verb, and stop_remote uses an inconsistent object, so the naming conventions are mixed.
Eight tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: account awareness, link inventory, publishing, unpublishing, and protection management. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feel redundant.
The core lifecycle is covered: publish via serve, unpublish via stop_remote, inventory via links, and full protection management via protect/renew/revoke/unprotect. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit update-to-existing-link operation, but agents can likely work around these.