Create a new live API key. Only available for active accounts. The key is shown once — store it immediately.
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": "create_api_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Human-readable label (e.g. 'claude-desktop') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses two key behaviors: the tool requires an active account, and the key is shown only once, requiring immediate storage. This is valuable but could be improved by mentioning whether the operation is idempotent or if there are rate limits.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, availability, and a critical caveat. It could explicitly mention that the tool returns the key, but the phrase 'the key is shown once' implies it.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'label' parameter, explaining its purpose. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states 'Create a new live API key,' identifying the resource (API key) and action (create). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_api_keys' and 'revoke_api_key' by the action and the 'live' qualifier.
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 notes that it is 'only available for active accounts,' providing some context for when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_api_keys' for checking existing keys.
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.