Summer

This connector has been deprecated

This was a duplicate manual listing. Use Summer’s official listing, imported from the official MCP Registry. Summer’s MCP server remains active at https://api.gosummer.ai/mcp. Setup and documentation: https://gosummer.ai/docs/mcp-clients.

Issue a new signing key

summer_messenger_installations_rotate_key

Destructive

Issue a new signing key. Existing signed sessions end. The key goes to the trusted local helper only. Returns a local CLI command when a secret is involved.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "environment": "<environment>",
      "installation": "<installation>",
      "expected_version": "<expected_version>"
    },
    "name": "summer_messenger_installations_rotate_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`company`	Yes	Summer company ID
`environment`	Yes	Environment that owns the resource
`installation`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No	Reuse the same key when retrying the same change
`expected_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it states that existing signed sessions end, that the key is delivered only to the trusted local helper, and that a local CLI command may be returned when a secret is involved. It still omits concurrency requirements (expected_version) and permission needs, but it materially outperforms 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main consequence, with zero padding. The final sentence about the local CLI command is slightly ambiguous, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the destructive consequence and partial return behavior, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. But for a destructive, open-world mutation with five parameters, it leaves out version-guard semantics, idempotency behavior, and permission prerequisites, so it is only minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 60% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it says nothing about any of the five parameters. In particular, the critical expected_version parameter (optimistic concurrency) and the installation parameter have no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving the agent to guess their role.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: issue (rotate) a new signing key, which is a specific verb+resource and not a tautology of the tool name. It does not, however, explicitly name the messenger installation as the resource or contrast itself with siblings like installations_update or installations_create.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites such as needing the current version or calling it only when a key must be rotated. The agent must infer usage from the name and annotations alone.

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

All Summer tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?