delete_sessions_delete_keyRemoves key from the session payload and returns true if the key existed.
Source: DELETE /api/v1/sessions/delete/{key}
Requires auth.sessionToken and forwards it as a Bearer token.
Prefer connection.workspaceName and connection.appId as stable config instead of generating identity fields dynamically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| params | Yes | ||
| connection | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutating action, the conditional return value ('returns true if the key existed'), the HTTP source, and the authentication requirement ('Requires auth.sessionToken and forwards it as a Bearer token'). It does not discuss error or idempotency behavior, but the core side effects are clear.
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 first sentence is strong and front-loaded. The source and auth lines add useful context, but the final sentence about preferring connection.workspaceName and connection.appId feels tangential and cryptic in the context of deleting a session key, slightly reducing focus.
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 delete-by-key tool, the description covers purpose, return semantics, and auth. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around not-found behavior, error cases, and the required connection.host, making it adequate but not complete.
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 description names the operationally important inputs (`key` and `auth.sessionToken`) in plain language. The schema already documents these fields, along with connection properties, so the description adds modest value but does not fully compensate for the low schema description coverage of the connection/body/query scaffolding.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Removes `key` from the session payload' and clarifies the return value. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like post_sessions_set_key and get_sessions_get_key.
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?
There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_sessions_set_key or get_sessions_get_key. The stable-config note about connection.workspaceName and connection.appId is not usage guidance for deletion, so the agent is left to infer when this tool should be chosen.
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 session/auth operations, and the descriptions clearly separate browser redirects from API endpoints. The main ambiguity is between get_sessions and get_sessions_my (payload vs. list) and the two logout variants, though the docs disambiguate them.
API tools consistently use snake_case `{method}_{resource}_{action}` names, but a few deviate: `auth_session_callback` lacks the method prefix, `get_sessions_get_key`/`delete_sessions_delete_key` are redundant, and the `secureflows_*` helpers use a different prefix. Still readable and predictable.
18 tools is slightly above the sweet spot, but the count is justified by distinct session lifecycle operations, auth redirects, and integration helpers. Only `get_docs_search` feels peripheral to the core session domain.
The surface covers session create, get-or-create, read, key-level update/delete, renew, revoke, logout, identity, and self-service listing/revocation, plus login/logout URL builders and linting. No important dead ends for the stated auth/session purpose.