Meta Council

Mint Child Api Key

mint_child_api_key

Mint a short-lived child API key for a delegated subtask. The child can never exceed the calling key: requested scopes must be a subset of what the caller holds, its expiry is capped by the caller's, and it may never itself mint keys (delegation is exactly one level deep). A caller whose own scopes were never recorded explicitly cannot delegate at all until it rotates first. The child key is returned exactly once in the response and cannot be retrieved again; revoking the parent immediately revokes the child. Requires the keys:mint scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Label for the child key (default 'delegated key').
`scopes`	Yes	Scopes to grant the child. Must be a subset of the calling key's own scopes and may not include keys:mint.
`expires_in_minutes`	No	Child lifetime in minutes (default 60, maximum 1440).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide minimal safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: scope subset constraint, expiry cap, one-level delegation only, one-time return of the child key, immediate revocation when parent is revoked, and the rotation prerequisite. This is exceptional transparency beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is a compact paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers constraints, edge cases, and safety-relevant behaviors. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, delegation constraints, a prerequisite, a specific edge case (unrecorded scopes), the one-time return property, parent-child revocation coupling, and required scope. The presence of an output schema means the return format need not be described. No material gaps are apparent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds dynamic context on top of the schema, such as the expiry being capped by the caller's expiration, which is not fully captured by the schema's max value. It also reinforces the scope subset rule, but most parameter details already exist in the schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Mint a short-lived child API key for a delegated subtask.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_api_key_info (viewing) and rotate_api_key (rotating) by focusing on key creation for delegation.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool, such as 'for a delegated subtask' and the prerequisite 'Requires the keys:mint scope.' It also notes a critical condition: a caller whose scopes were never recorded cannot delegate until rotating. However, it does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Meta Council 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.

Resources

Need Help?