Skip to main content
Glama

Replace an app key

gate_rotate_app_key
Destructive

Replace one app's key and keep its rules, limits, expiry and call count. The old key stops working at once (no overlap) and the new key is shown once. Use it when a key may have leaked; to remove the app entirely use gate_revoke_app.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "admin_key": "<admin_key>",
      "app": "<app>"
    },
    "name": "gate_rotate_app_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYesThe app id (app_...) from gate_list_apps
admin_keyYesThe project admin key (ga_...). Read it from the .env; never print it.
project_idYesThe project id from gate_create_project, e.g. p1a2b3...

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description earns credit by explaining exactly what that means: the old key stops working at once with no overlap window, and the new key is only shown once. That is the irreversibility detail an agent needs before acting, and it far exceeds what the hints convey.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The effect statement and the once-only key disclosure come first, with the routing hint to the sibling tool at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description still discloses the one return value that matters (the new key is shown once) plus the side effect on the old key. For a 3-parameter mutation tool that is everything an agent needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters carry 100% schema descriptions, including how to obtain app id and admin_key and the instruction never to print the key. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (replace) plus specific resource (one app's key) with the exact scope of preservation spelled out: rules, limits, expiry, call count. It is immediately distinguishable from gate_revoke_app, which the description names directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ("when a key may have leaked") and an explicit alternative for the adjacent case ("to remove the app entirely use gate_revoke_app"). The agent does not need to infer the boundary between rotation and revocation.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources