tailscale_delete_keyDelete (revoke) an auth key or API access token by id — a security response. Tailscale REST: DELETE /tailnet/{tailnet}/keys/{keyId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyId | Yes | The key id to delete. |
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 declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'revoke' and 'security response'. It adds context about what is deleted (auth keys or API tokens) and the exact REST endpoint, going beyond the annotation's bare destructive flag.
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 two sentences, with the essential purpose in the first and a useful REST reference in the second. No wasted words.
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?
Given a single parameter, destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context including the REST operation. It does not promise return values, which is appropriate since none are defined.
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 schema describes keyId as 'The key id to delete' with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain it. However, it adds semantic context by clarifying that the id refers to an auth key or API access token, which aids interpretation.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Delete (revoke)' and identifies the resource as 'an auth key or API access token by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_device. The REST endpoint reference adds further precision.
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 'a security response' provides context for when to use (revoking compromised keys), and specifying 'auth key or API access token' distinguishes from device management tools. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives but the resource scope serves as implicit guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. For example, list/get/delete keys are clearly separated by operation, and DNS-related tools each address a different aspect (preferences, nameservers, searchpaths, split-dns). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the `tailscale_<verb>_<noun>` pattern with consistent vocabulary (list, get, create, delete, set, expire, authorize). The style is uniformly snake_case, making the set predictable.
22 tools is on the higher end but still within a manageable scope for a comprehensive Tailscale API wrapper. Each tool covers a distinct endpoint, and no obvious duplication exists, though the number edges toward heavy.
The server provides strong coverage for devices and auth keys (CRUD plus actions), but DNS preferences, nameservers, search paths, split-DNS, policy file, tailnet settings, and webhooks are read-only. Missing update operations for these tailnet configuration resources are notable gaps for a management tool.