mcp

Create a scoped API key (needs approval)

create_api_key

Mints a NEW least-privilege redu API key for a deployed app or automation to use (e.g. to add a backup feature). GUARDRAIL: the first call does NOT create anything. It returns a confirmation the user must approve, because a key is a long-lived credential that acts on the account and ANY usage of it is BILLED to the account owner. Show the user the name, the exact scopes, and the billing notice, get their explicit approval, then call again with confirm:true. This is required even in yolo/auto mode. The secret is returned ONCE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	A recognizable name for the key, e.g. 'supabase-backups'.
`scopes`	Yes	LEAST-PRIVILEGE scopes the key may use, e.g. ['instance:read','backup:read','backup:create','backup:restore']. Grant only what the feature needs. Discover the catalog via GET /v1/capabilities (grammar '<resource>:<action>'). billing/subscription/payment/admin are human-only and cannot be granted.
`confirm`	No	Set true ONLY after the user has explicitly approved (see the confirmation the first call returns). Leave unset to get the approval prompt first. Do NOT set it yourself.
`expires_in_days`	No	Optional: auto-expire the key after N days.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No
`mode`	No
`name`	No
`next`	No
`error`	No
`scopes`	No
`warning`	No
`expires_at`	No
`validation`	No
`billing_notice`	No
`needs_confirmation`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but description adds crucial details: two-step workflow, billing implications for account owner, secret returned only once, and requirement for explicit user approval. These traits go beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, guardrail warning, and actionable steps. Slightly verbose in places but every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 complexity (two-step creation, billing sensitive, secret handling) and presence of output schema, the description fully covers the workflow, required user actions, and safety constraints. All necessary context for correct tool invocation is provided.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. Description adds workflow context around the 'confirm' parameter but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool mints a new API key for deployed apps/automation, with a specific verb ('Mints a NEW... API key') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create_* tools by being API-key-specific and including a guardrail about billing and two-step approval.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly explains when to use (for apps/automation needing key-based access) and when not to (first call does not create; requires user approval even in auto mode). Provides step-by-step: first call gets confirmation, then second call with confirm:true. No alternatives named but context makes usage clear.

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

All mcp 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, and the descriptions include specific details (e.g., create_database for Postgres vs create_relational_database for MySQL/MariaDB) that prevent confusion. Even similar tools like plan_deploy, plan_instance, and plan_managed_datastore are well-differentiated by their contexts.

Naming Consistency5/5

The vast majority of tools follow the verb_noun pattern with underscores (create_*, list_*, delete_*, etc.). Only minor deviations like 'whoami' exist, but the overall pattern is highly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 69 tools, the server has an excessive number for an MCP context, far exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While it may mirror the full redu.cloud API, the sheer count overwhelms agents and increases selection latency.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the majority of cloud management operations: CRUD for instances, volumes, databases, deployments, and more. However, update operations are missing for several resources (e.g., instance resize, volume resize), and there is no tool to modify deployments without redeploying.

Resources

Need Help?