rotate_credentialReplace the long-lived agent credential. The new credential is returned once. One credential write plus one agent record write.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "rotate_credential"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the new credential is returned exactly once (unrecoverable afterward), and the operation costs one credential write plus one agent record write. It stops short of saying whether the old credential is invalidated immediately or during a grace window.
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 short sentences, zero padding. The irreversible 'returned once' warning is placed early where an agent will actually read it before deciding to call.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs. The remaining gap is failure and permission behavior — what happens if the caller is unauthenticated, and whether the old secret stays valid briefly.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description has no parameter semantics to carry. It correctly avoids inventing argument detail that the empty schema does not support.
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 pair: 'Replace the long-lived agent credential.' An agent immediately understands this mints a new credential in place of the existing one. It never names the closest sibling, revoke_credential, so the rotate-vs-revoke distinction is left to inference.
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?
'Replace the long-lived agent credential' implies the rotation scenario, and 'returned once' hints that this is for obtaining fresh secret material. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (auth level, whether the agent must still hold a valid credential), and no contrast with revoke_credential for decommissioning.
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.