VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

list_keys

Read-only

List this account's API keys as PREFIXES only (never the raw key). Admin scope.

    Returns {keys:[{prefix, name, scopes, daily_credit_cap, spent_today, created_at,
    revoked_at}]}, oldest first; revoked_at is null for an active key, scopes lists the
    key's grant (WP-SCOPE), spent_today is its credits spent since UTC midnight. Your
    signup key shows as name "default". Errors: unauthorized, forbidden, rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No	API key for this call. Omit to fall back to the Authorization: Bearer / X-API-Key request header (streamable-HTTP only), then the VHGENGINE_API_KEY env var (the stdio default). No key resolvable -> unauthorized.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keys`	No	Oldest first. Each {prefix, name, scopes, daily_credit_cap, spent_today, created_at, revoked_at}; revoked_at null means still active, and the signup key shows as name 'default'.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral details: it returns only prefixes, never the raw key; it provides the exact return object schema including field semantics (revoked_at null for active, spent_today since UTC midnight); and lists possible errors (unauthorized, forbidden, rate_limited). This is rich, non-obvious context that helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the essential action and security constraint, followed by a compact but complete return structure explanation. Every sentence provides actionable information with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple parameter set and the presence of an output schema, the description goes beyond by explaining ordering, field values, default key naming, and error conditions. It fully equips the agent to invoke the tool and interpret results without guessing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers the only parameter (api_key) with a detailed description of its fallback behavior, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning (admin scope is not param-related), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's job: 'List this account's API keys as PREFIXES only (never the raw key).' It names the resource (API keys), the action (list), and adds a critical scope distinction ('Admin scope'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_key and revoke_key.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use by stating 'Admin scope' and 'this account's API keys', giving clear context. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use, but the read-only listing purpose is clear from the context and sibling names.

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

All VHGENGINE tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources

Need Help?