Skip to main content
Glama

List API keys

list_api_keys
Read-onlyIdempotent

The site keys (tbk_…) of the site: name, first characters, scopes, who made it and when it was last used. Never shows the secret. Needs the admin scope.

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": "list_api_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNoSite domain (example.com), id or public id (tb_…). Optional with a site key, or when the account has one site.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly says secrets are never shown and that the admin scope is required, plus it lists the visible fields. No return format or pagination notes are needed for this simple list.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It immediately states the resource and returned fields, then adds the security and permission constraints.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with one optional, fully-specified parameter and complete annotations, the description supplies the remaining details an agent needs: visible fields, secret exclusion, and admin-scope requirement. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the sole `site` parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples and optionality rules. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource (site API keys) and enumerates the returned fields, making the operation distinguishable from secret-revealing siblings like roll_api_key. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states a prerequisite — "Needs the admin scope" — but does not explain when to use this versus related tools such as list_sites, revoke_api_key, or roll_api_key. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly guided.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources