⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE — requires human confirmation before use in automated pipelines. Revoke the current API key and issue a replacement. Returns the new key once — store it immediately. Pass keys as the X-DataNexus-Key header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| current_key | Yes | Existing active API key (dnx_...) to revoke and replace. Required. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Reinforces annotations with clear warning ('DESTRUCTIVE') and adds critical behavior: 'store it immediately' and 'requires human confirmation'. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with critical warning, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Covers the essential: what it does, destructive warning, key storage instruction, and authentication method. Output schema exists, so return value info is adequate.
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 'current_key' is well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only noting key format and header.
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?
Description clearly states 'Revoke the current API key and issue a replacement' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools apikeys_generate_api_key and apikeys_revoke_api_key by combining both actions.
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?
Explicitly warns about destructive nature and need for human confirmation. Mentions passing keys via header. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but the context of rotation vs. revoke/generate is implied.
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.
Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.
55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.
The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.