Permanently revoke an API key. The key stops authenticating immediately. This cannot be undone — a new key must be created to replace it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key_id | Yes | UUID of the key to revoke. Get it from list_api_keys. |
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?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description goes further by disclosing that revocation takes effect immediately, cannot be undone, and requires creating a new key. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Three short sentences each carry essential information: the action, the immediate effect, and the irreversible consequence with the replacement path. There is no filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the timing, the permanence, and the follow-up step. The annotations and schema supply the remaining safety and parameter context, so nothing critical is missing.
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 single parameter api_key_id is fully documented in the schema, including its UUID type and how to obtain it via list_api_keys. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already covers 100% of the parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names the exact action, 'permanently revoke an API key,' and adds the concrete effect that the key stops authenticating immediately. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_key and list_api_keys, and there is no competing revoke tool among the siblings.
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 description frames when to use it by emphasizing that revocation is irreversible and that a replacement key must be created afterward, implying create_api_key as the alternative for continued access. It does not enumerate exclusions, but the tool's singular purpose makes the usage context clear.
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.
Tools are organized by clear resource domains, and the long descriptions carefully separate similar reads. The main ambiguity is create_monitor's upsert behavior overlapping with update_monitor, and list_incidents vs list_open_incidents could be confused from names alone.
Almost every tool uses verb_noun snake_case with a consistent CRUD vocabulary like create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_. Minor deviations exist: get_alert_templates is really a list operation, and discover_monitors_reconcile is an awkward verb-object-verb construction.
Thirty-six tools is a heavy surface for an agent to navigate, even for a full monitoring platform. Most tools are individually purposeful, but the count exceeds the range where an agent can quickly scan and select, and the set would be easier to handle if split across domains.
Coverage is strong: monitors, destinations, agents, status pages, API keys, routes, alert templates, incidents, run history, discovery, and Terraform export all have read and lifecycle operations. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit single-incident view and no acknowledgment/resolution action beyond notes, but core workflows have no dead ends.
