The account's API keys, newest first: name, prefix, access, the page it is held to, the connected app that made it (madeBy), when it was made and last used. Never the key itself. Owner and admins' keys only; a key held to one page sees the keys for its page.
| 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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral facts: secrets are never returned ('Never the key itself'), sort order is newest-first, and the permission/visibility model differs between owner/admin callers and page-scoped keys. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and none are derivable from annotations.
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?
Front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then field list, then the security caveat, then the scope rule. It is dense and mostly earns its space, though the compressed phrase 'the page it is held to' and the run-on field list cost a little readability.
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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden well by enumerating returned fields and explicitly excluding the secret value. It does not touch on pagination or result-size limits, which is a minor gap for a list tool.
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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to clarify. The field enumeration it does provide is about return values rather than inputs, which is a mild bonus rather than a requirement.
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 opening clause names the specific resource (the account's API keys) and immediately states ordering ('newest first') and the exact fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_apps or list_pages without opening any other definition.
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?
It states the usage condition clearly: 'Owner and admins' keys only; a key held to one page sees the keys for its page,' which tells the caller both the authorization requirement and the scope-dependent visibility. There is no competing sibling listing API keys, so no when-not guidance is required, but it stops short of explicitly naming that this is the only enumeration path.
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.