Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tokenrip

by com.tokenrip
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List connected agents

key_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the agents connected to your account: each key's id, name, creation and last-use times, whether it is the one you are using (current), for a connector (a chat app connected through OAuth) its client, how many browsers its sign-in links hold signed in (browser_sessions; revoking the key signs them out), and its access (all workspaces, or the workspaces it may read or change). Never returns a key itself.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "key_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / keys / items / properties / access
      Added value: +{
+  "oneOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "mode": {
+          "const": "all",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "mode"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "mode": {
+          "const": "limited",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "workspaces": {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "properties": {
+              "id": {
+                "format": "uuid",
+                "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "level": {
+                "enum": [
+                  "read",
+                  "write"
+                ],
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "name": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "slug": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "id",
+              "slug",
+              "name",
+              "level"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "mode",
+        "workspaces"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / keys / items / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "created_at",
-  "last_used_at",
-  "current",
-  "connector",
-  "browser_sessions"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "created_at",
+  "last_used_at",
+  "current",
+  "connector",
+  "browser_sessions",
+  "access"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description is not needed for safety basics. It goes further where annotations cannot: it guarantees 'Never returns a key itself' (a security-relevant disclosure) and explains that browser_sessions counts signed-in browsers that revoking the key would sign out, which is real consequence information. It stops short of stating ordering, pagination, or scale limits.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, which is good, but the bulk is a single run-on sentence enumerating return fields with nested parentheticals, some of which restate what the output schema already defines. The information is dense rather than padded, yet the field enumeration could be trimmed for an agent that can read the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to define return values, and its one genuinely irreplaceable additions are the 'never returns a key itself' guarantee and the browser-session/revocation linkage. It is complete enough to call safely with zero parameters. It lacks only explicit sibling routing and any note on result ordering or volume.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs by describing a scoped, whole-account listing. No parameter meaning is added because none exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('List the agents connected to your account') and clarifies that 'agents' are keys by describing per-key fields. This lets an agent distinguish it from a mutation like key_revoke, though the description never names that sibling explicitly. Purpose is unambiguous, only sibling contrast is implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: it is clearly the read/inspection path for connected keys, and the note about revoking signing browsers out hints at key_revoke as the mutation counterpart. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusions, and no prerequisites (e.g. who can see which keys). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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

All Tokenrip toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources