Mint a new Scriptivox API key (sk_live_...) for the signed-in person. This is the bridge from a web account to the transcription API. The secret is returned ONCE and cannot be retrieved again. Requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A label so the person can tell their keys apart. Required. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the secret is returned only once and cannot be retrieved again, and it requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token. This goes beyond what annotations provide and is essential for safe invocation.
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 sentences with zero filler. The key information (once-only secret, OAuth requirement, purpose) is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place. No redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: what it creates, the security caveat, and the auth requirement. It's complete for correct invocation and handling of the result.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides. The field 'name' is well-documented in the schema, and the description doesn't enrich it further. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'mint' with 'API key' as the resource, specifies the key format (sk_live_...), and states it's for the signed-in person. It clearly distinguishes from revocation tools like revoke_api_key by being the creation counterpart.
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 description explains the tool's role as the bridge from a web account to the transcription API, and mentions the OAuth requirement, providing clear context for when it's needed. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it among siblings.
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.
