Rotate the calling key: returns a new key (shown once) with the same scopes; the old key keeps working for grace_seconds (default 3600, 0 = revoke now).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grace_seconds | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | Optional. Reuse on retries so the action happens once. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the new key is shown only once, that it inherits the same scopes, and that the old key remains valid for grace_seconds with 0 meaning immediate revocation. Those are exactly the non-obvious, irreversible-ish traits an agent needs before calling a credential mutation.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the parameter semantics in parentheses. No sentence is wasted and nothing important trails off.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the returned artifact, and the key parameter's contract. It leaves unstated whether the new key is immediately active and whether other existing keys are affected, which matters for an agent reasoning about blast radius.
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 50%: idempotency_key is documented in the schema, but grace_seconds is not. The description compensates by defining grace_seconds' meaning, its default (3600) and the special value 0, which is more than the schema alone offers. It does not mention the 0–86400 bounds, so it doesn't fully close the gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Rotate the calling key') and immediately scopes it to the caller's own key, which no sibling tool touches. An agent can distinguish it from every listed sibling without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the 'revoke now' hint (use with grace_seconds=0 to immediately kill the old key), but the description never says when an agent should rotate versus simply continue using the existing key, nor whether any prerequisite/confirmation exists. With no sibling alternatives to route between, implied usage is the realistic ceiling here.
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.