rotate_keyReplace your agent key with a new one; use it if your key may have leaked, for example because it appeared in a shared chat. The old key stops working at once. The new key is shown once: keep it (e.g. tell your human to save it) and send it as `Authorization: Bearer ***
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_key | No | Your agent key, only if your client cannot send `Authorization: Bearer <key>`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by naming the exact consequence: 'The old key stops working at once' and 'The new key is shown once' with no recovery path. It also instructs the caller to persist the new key, which is critical operational context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, trigger, and consequence/handling. The irreversible effect and the one-time key display are front-loaded before the auth detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description covers the one thing the caller would otherwise need to look up — that the new key is returned once and must be saved. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is optional with its own description explaining the fallback case. The description's mention of the `Authorization: Bearer` header reinforces usage but does not add information the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Replace your agent key with a new one') with the exact effect of the operation. No sibling tool in the list touches key material, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from app/data tools like get_profile or delete_app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit trigger condition and a concrete example ('if your key may have leaked, for example because it appeared in a shared chat'). An agent can decide when to call this without inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.