Delete API Key
key_deleteDestructiveIdempotent
Revoke an API key. Refuses to revoke the currently-authenticating key.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes | The key ID to revoke (from key_list). |
ToolRouter
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guard: 'Refuses to revoke the currently-authenticating key', which is important edge-case information not captured by annotations. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.
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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately, making it scannable for an agent.
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 rich annotations, the description covers the core behavior and the key refusal edge case. It does not state the success/error return format, but absent an output schema this is a minor gap for such a simple operation.
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 covers key_id with 100% description coverage, including the source '(from key_list)'. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides what the agent needs, 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?
States the operation precisely: 'Revoke an API key.' This is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like key_create and key_list. The additional refusal note is a unique behavioral detail that further identifies the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for revocation, but it doesn't explicitly instruct when to use it instead of sibling key tools. There is no mention of alternatives like key_create (to rotate) or key_list (to enumerate). The refusal condition provides limited context but doesn't explain what to do if the current key must be rotated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are grouped by clear resource prefixes (account_, brain_, connector_, credential_, file_, job_, key_), and most actions have distinct purposes. A few boundaries overlap—brain_admin's lint action duplicates brain_lint, and account_preferences/setup/switch could momentarily confuse—but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
The dominant pattern is resource_verb for actions (file_read, job_cancel, key_create) and resource_noun for state views (credits_balance, brain_settings, account_preferences), which is readable. However, exceptions like discover, use_tool, top_up_credits, and feedback_request_tool break the pattern, and the set is not consistently verb_noun.
Tool Count2/5
47 tools is well beyond the comfortable range; even though prefixes organize them, the agent faces a large selection surface with many narrowly scoped tools. A more consolidated set with action-based subcommands would be easier to navigate.
Completeness4/5
Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account setup and billing, connector and credential management, file CRUD, job polling, key lifecycle, brain knowledge management, and catalogue discovery/execution. Gaps are minor—outfit/persona/product/scene are list-only, connectors lack an update operation, and there is no explicit single-page brain get—but agents can generally work around them.