Pane

Manage API Key

key

Destructive

The calling agent's API key. Actions: list returns key info (agent_id, key_prefix, timestamps); mint creates a sibling API key for the caller's own agent identity with the same scope and ownership and returns its raw value once, which is how an MCP-driven agent hands a CLI or child process a working credential, and the raw value is not retrievable afterwards, the sibling appears in a later list made with it, and the owner can revoke it; revoke destroys the agent's own key, which stops working immediately and cannot be undone, so it requires confirm:true. The relay derives identity from the caller's token, so every action applies to the caller's own agent and mint cannot target another agent's id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	The calling agent's API key. list: key info (agent_id, key_prefix, timestamps). mint: mints a sibling API key for the calling agent's own identity (same scope/ownership) and returns its raw value once, which is what hands a CLI or child process a working credential; the sibling is a distinct key that shows up in a subsequent `list` made with it, the owner can revoke it, and the raw value is never retrievable again. mint always acts on the calling agent, never another agent's id. revoke: self-destructs the agent's own key, which stops working immediately and is irreversible (requires confirm:true).
`confirm`	No	Required (true) for revoke.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations indicating destructiveHint, the description adds crucial behavioral details: revoke is irreversible and requires confirm:true, mint returns the raw value only once and it becomes non-retrievable, and the sibling key appears in later lists. It also clarifies that identity comes from the caller's token, preventing targeting others.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single long run-on paragraph containing many details. While all information is relevant, the lack of structured bullet points or clear separation between actions reduces readability and conciseness.

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?

The description covers all aspects needed for operation with no output schema: what list returns, what mint returns and its one-time-only caveat, revoke's requirements, identity derivation, and security constraints. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke actions correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'action' and 'confirm' that mirror the tool description. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool manages the calling agent's API key with three specific actions: list, mint, and revoke. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on API key lifecycle operations, using specific verbs and resources.

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?

The description provides explicit scenarios for each action: mint is for handing a CLI or child process a credential, revoke is for irreversible destruction requiring confirmation, and list is for key info. It also states what cannot be done ('mint cannot target another agent's id'), offering clear when-to-use and limitations.

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

All Pane 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: row operations (get/list/upsert/update/delete/restore) are clearly separated, while apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members, publisher, review, and taste each cover a different domain. Even closely related actions like share_link_rotate and domain_set have clearly scoped descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use two patterns: noun-like names for resource areas (apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members) and verb_noun names for row operations (upsert_row, delete_row, etc.). This deviation is predictable and readable, but it is not perfectly uniform, so a slight deduction applies.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of the platform (app lifecycle, data storage, attachments, community, reviews, feedback, identity) justifies the count. Each tool represents a meaningful feature area with multiple internal actions, so none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for apps (create, read, update, delete), rows (create, read, update, delete, restore, list deleted), attachments, membership, grants, ingest, community, and reviews. Obvious gaps like rollback or version history are not core to the domain, and the presence of get_skill helps agents understand the workflow.

Resources

Need Help?