Skip to main content
Glama
dnotitia

akb

by dnotitia
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

akb_revoke

Revoke a user's access to a vault. Omit source_key to remove all access bases, or specify one to withdraw only that basis.

Instructions

Revoke a user's vault access. You must be owner or admin. Omit source_key and the person is out of the vault entirely; name one and only that basis is withdrawn, which may downgrade rather than remove.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesTarget username
vaultYesVault name
revisionNoMonotonic per (vault, user, source); a stale one is a no-op.
source_keyNoWithdraw only this basis. Omit it and EVERY basis goes — an administrator's revoke, which must not leave the person holding rule-given access.
_vault_skill_ackNoOpaque acknowledgement returned as vault_skill.ack_token. After applying that guide, retry the unchanged operation with this value. The bundled proxy supplies it automatically.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.14
    • addedInput schema / properties / _vault_skill_ack
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Opaque acknowledgement returned as vault_skill.ack_token. After applying that guide, retry the unchanged operation with this value. The bundled proxy supplies it automatically.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / revision
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Monotonic per (vault, user, source); a stale one is a no-op.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Withdraw only this basis. Omit it and EVERY basis goes — an administrator's revoke, which must not leave the person holding rule-given access.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.0.4
  3. Removedv2.0.1
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the permission requirement, the destructive all-basis behavior when source_key is omitted, and the nuanced 'may downgrade rather than remove' outcome. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 dense sentences deliver the action, permission requirement, and behavioral branch without filler. The most important facts are front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given rich schema descriptions for all five parameters, the description's permission and mode distinction cover the essential non-schema context. A response/return-value note would help, but the tool remains safely callable with the information provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description rephrases the source_key semantics already present in the schema without adding new parameter-level details; it adds operational context rather than parameter meaning.

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?

The description states a specific action—'Revoke a user's vault access'—and immediately clarifies the two distinct behaviors depending on whether source_key is present. This makes it easy to distinguish from inverse and ownership tools like akb_grant and akb_transfer_ownership.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear operational context: owner/admin is required, and the tool revokes vault access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the coarse-vs-fine-grained revocation distinction is enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dnotitia/akb'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server