ThinAir Geo

issue_api_key

Mint a fresh API key for your current authenticated user/tenant. Useful for CLI workflows, key rotation, or MCP clients that hide the configured Bearer. The new key is tied to your existing plan. Counts as 1 query against your daily quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`plan`	No
`user`	No
`error`	No
`usage`	No
`key_id`	No	Non-secret fingerprint of the issued key. Safe to log and surface in UI.
`status`	Yes
`api_key`	No	One-time API key secret. Returned only on successful creation, in both structuredContent.api_key and content[0].text — save it immediately. The server stores only sha-256 of the secret; once this response is lost, the key is unrecoverable and must be rotated. Matches AWS IAM / Stripe / GitHub PAT one-time-reveal semantics.
`credential_returned_once`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by noting the key is 'tied to your existing plan' and 'Counts as 1 query against your daily quota.' It also clarifies the authenticated context. This provides auth and rate-limit information not present in the sparse annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: the action, use cases, and side effects. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, use cases, plan linkage, and quota impact, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does or when to use it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to.

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 function: 'Mint a fresh API key for your current authenticated user/tenant.' This uses a specific verb ('mint') and resource ('API key'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all geocoding or spatial services.

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?

It explicitly lists use cases: 'CLI workflows, key rotation, or MCP clients that hide the configured Bearer.' While it doesn't name alternatives (none of the siblings are relevant), it gives clear contexts for when this tool is appropriate.

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

All ThinAir Geo 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools (geocode vs geocode_structured, explore vs search_places, map_match vs trace_attributes) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, with cross-references guiding correct selection. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (geocode, reverse_geocode, batch_geocode, search_places, resolve_intersection), but there are minor deviations: some tools use noun-only names (directions, traffic, weather) and a couple use noun_verb order (place_get, geofence_contains). This creates slight inconsistency but remains readable.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but each tool earns its place by covering a distinct geospatial function. The breadth spans geocoding, routing, places, telematics, geofencing, traffic, weather, and account management, making the count reasonable for a comprehensive geo API.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for a geospatial server: forward, reverse, batch, structured, and intersection geocoding; routing, matrix, and isochrones; place search, exploration, and ID lookup; map matching, trace attributes, and point snapping; plus geofencing, traffic, weather, and quota management. No critical gaps or dead ends apparent.

Resources

Need Help?