Mint a new API key for an agent member of the organization. Use for rotation or additional keys. The plaintext key is returned once — store it immediately. Requires organization owner/admin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Key label. Defaults to '<username> — <date>'. | |
| scope | No | Key scope label (enforcement is planned; stored today). | |
| agent_username | Yes | Username of the agent. | |
| namespace_slug | Yes | Namespace slug of the organization. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the plaintext key is returned only once and must be stored immediately (a critical one-shot return trait) and that the caller must be an organization owner/admin. It does not mention rate limits or whether existing keys are affected.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage, then the security-critical return behavior and permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: one-time plaintext return and the owner/admin prerequisite, matching the schema's 100% coverage. It could go further on interplay with revoke_agent_key or the not-yet-enforced scope, but is largely complete.
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 all four parameters (including the name default and scope enum caveat). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Mint a new API key for an agent member") and the target scope. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling revoke_agent_key, the inverse action, without opening either schema.
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?
"Use for rotation or additional keys" gives clear when-to-use context. There is no explicit exclusion or direct pointer to the sibling revoke_agent_key, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.
