Scrapewise

scrapewise_list_api_keys

Read-onlyIdempotent

        Returns every active key issued for this customer. The secret value is NEVER
        returned (only id, name, prefix, scope, and lastUsed timestamp). Use to audit
        which keys exist and when they were last used, before revoking stale ones.
        Combined with scrapewise_delete_api_key, this is the standard "find then
        revoke" flow — the secret is unrecoverable once issued, so the prefix +
        lastUsed is what you have to identify a key by post-hoc.

        Args:
          (none — the customer is identified by the API key on the request.)

        Returns:
          `List<ApiKeyDTO>` — id, name, 8-char prefix, scope (USER / MCP_GATEWAY /
          INTERNAL), lastUsed (Instant or null if never used), createdAt. Empty list
          if the customer has no keys. Order is repository-natural; sort client-side
          by lastUsed if you need "most-recent first".

        Examples:
          - Use when: "what API keys do I have?"
          - Use when: "which key was used most recently?" → list, sort by lastUsed
          - Use when: auditing keys before bulk revocation of stale ones
          - Don't use when: you want to revoke one → use scrapewise_delete_api_key
            (still need to list first to find the id)

        Error Handling:
          - 401 Unauthorized.
          - 500 INTERNAL.

[runtime hint] This tool returns JSON-as-text — its response shape is dynamic (per-scraper itemsConfig, file binary, etc.) so the MCP outputSchema is omitted. Do not rely on the presence of any specific field in the response; treat the result as a string-or-object blob and parse defensively.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scrapewise_list_api_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that the secret value is never returned, that secrets are unrecoverable once issued (so prefix + lastUsed are the only post-hoc identifiers), that ordering is repository-natural and must be sorted client-side, and it enumerates 401/500 error conditions. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and the never-returns-secret constraint are front-loaded, and the Examples block is efficient. It is somewhat long for a zero-argument list call — a dedicated Args section for no args and a repeated note about needing to list before deleting are mild padding, and the detailed Returns block sits in tension with the runtime hint that the response shape is dynamic.

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 no-param read tool this covers identification, fields returned, ordering, empty-result behavior, and error codes — nearly everything an agent needs. The only shortfall is that it asserts a concrete List<ApiKeyDTO> shape while the runtime hint warns the response is a defensively-parsed blob, so the field list should be framed as expected rather than guaranteed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the "Args: (none — the customer is identified by the API key on the request.)" line usefully explains how the implicit tenancy scoping works, which the empty schema cannot express. This is slightly more than baseline but there is no further parameter nuance to add.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Returns every active key issued for this customer") and immediately scopes the result set. It also names the exact fields exposed, which distinguishes it unambiguously from scrapewise_delete_api_key and from generic list tools in the sibling set.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit "Use when" examples (auditing, most-recently-used questions, pre-revocation checks) and an explicit "Don't use when" pointing at scrapewise_delete_api_key. It also describes the composite "find then revoke" workflow, so the agent knows listing is a prerequisite step rather than a substitute.

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

All Scrapewise 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.