request_keyGet a working API key now, without a sign-up form. Give the email of the person you work for: the key works at once for a few calls a day, they get one email, and when they confirm it the same key moves to the free plan of 100 calls a day. Then send it as Authorization: Bearer on this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | A short name for your agent, shown to that person | |
| Yes | Email of the person the agent works for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses immediate limited quota, the confirmation email, the upgrade to 100 calls/day, and the Authorization: Bearer usage, though it omits key expiry, revocation, and error cases.
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 front-loaded with the outcome and constraints, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description implies that a key is returned and explains how to use it. It could specify the response shape or failure modes, but it is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that the email belongs to the person the agent works for, but it does not mention the optional agent parameter or add syntax beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: get a working API key for this server, without a sign-up form. It is clearly distinct from the unrelated sibling tools check_agent_readiness and fetch_page.
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?
It gives clear usage context: get a key now without sign-up, use it immediately for a few calls, and confirm the email to move to the free plan. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
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.