ColossalCapital — Akashic Corpus & Agentic Platform

Test LLM Key

test_llm_key

Read-onlyIdempotent

Test an LLM provider key against the provider without storing it. Use before set_llm_key if you want to check validity first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "provider": "<provider>",
      "api_key": "<api_key>"
    },
    "name": "test_llm_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	Yes
`provider`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds the salient behavioral trait that the key is not persisted, which matters for a credential tool. It doesn't mention rate limits or error semantics, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the non-persistence constraint and the routing guidance front-loaded. Zero waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the when-to-use is fully covered. But with a 0% schema coverage on two required params, the definition leaves the provider/format ambiguity unaddressed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the two required parameters. It says nothing about what provider values are accepted (no enum, no list_llm_providers reference) or the api_key format, so an agent has to guess.

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?

States a specific verb (test) and resource (LLM provider key) plus the key scope constraint (without storing it). The agent can distinguish it from set_llm_key immediately.

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 names the alternative (set_llm_key) and the condition that selects it (checking validity first). This is the textbook when-to-use guidance.

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

All ColossalCapital — Akashic Corpus & Agentic Platform tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?