List API keys. Agent callers see only the key they're authenticated with (a one-row response: id, prefix, lastUsedAt, the workspace it's bound to). User callers (cookie session) see every key for every agent they own. Plaintext is never returned; the key body is shown only once at create/rotate time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals critical facts: plaintext is never returned, the key body appears only once at creation/rotation, different caller types see different result sets, and the response shape (id, prefix, lastUsedAt, workspace binding) is specified.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose, the second explains caller-specific behavior, and the third adds the security caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.
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?
The description thoroughly covers what the tool does, who sees what, the expected response fields, and the critical security constraint. Without an output schema or annotations, it provides enough context for an agent to know exactly what to expect and when to use the 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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about input semantics. The description instead adds useful output and caller-scoping context, which is appropriate for this parameterless tool.
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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'List API keys,' then clarifies the difference between agent and user caller scopes, which precisely defines the tool's behavior. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like revoke_api_key or rotate_api_key.
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 description implies when to use the tool by explaining who sees what, and it explicitly warns that plaintext is never returned and is only shown at create/rotate time, effectively steering callers away from using this to retrieve secret keys. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.
With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.
The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.