list_keysAn MCP's ingest keys — name, prefix, created, revoked. The key itself is hashed and never returned; only the prefix, which is what identifies one in a list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcp | Yes | The MCP, by name or id. Names are matched case-insensitively; call list_mcps if unsure. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | Yes | This MCP's ingest keys, working and revoked alike. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: the raw key is hashed and never returned, and only the identifying prefix is exposed. This is non-obvious, security-relevant context that an agent needs before invoking or relying on the response.
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?
The description is two short clauses with no filler. It front-loads the resource and returned fields, then adds the critical hashed-key caveat in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the definition is complete. The description covers what is returned and what is not, and the schema covers how to specify the MCP.
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?
The tool description itself does not discuss the `mcp` parameter, but the input schema fully documents it: by name or id, case-insensitive, with a pointer to list_mcps if unsure. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies and the description need not compensate further.
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?
The description identifies the resource ('an MCP's ingest keys') and the exact fields returned (name, prefix, created, revoked), so the purpose is clear. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like revoke_key, but the title and tool name supply the action.
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?
The context is clear: this is the tool for viewing ingest keys belonging to a given MCP. The parameter schema adds helpful guidance to call list_mcps if unsure, but the description itself provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.