Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

EchoRelay

by dev.echorelay
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_api_key

Mint an inbound relay (data-plane) API key for callers to send traffic to this project. Its er_live_ or er_test_ secret authenticates relay requests; it cannot call management MCP or REST. Returns the plaintext exactly once — store it now, it cannot be retrieved later. Editor + owner; subject to the project key policy (see get_key_policy).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNolive → paid pool, test → testing pool (rate-limited to the plan's live rate). Omit for live.live
nameYesHuman-readable label, up to 120 characters.
ttlDaysNoLifetime in days. Omit to use the project's defaultKeyTtlDays from get_key_policy. Null = never expires (owner-only unless editorsMayCreateNonExpiringKeys is set).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / mode / default
      Added value: +"live"
    • changedInput schema / properties / mode / description
      Previous value: -"live → paid pool, test → testing pool (rate-limited to the plan's live rate)."New value: +"live → paid pool, test → testing pool (rate-limited to the plan's live rate). Omit for live."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "mode"
-]New value: +[
+  "name"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses high-value behavior: the plaintext secret is returned exactly once and cannot be retrieved later, the key's scope is limited to relay traffic (cannot call management MCP/REST), and creation is gated by role and the project key policy. These are precisely the traits an agent must know before minting a credential.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope/behavior, then the one-time secret warning, then permissions. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for the critical part (plaintext returned once, store it now). It does not mention other response fields (e.g., key id, name, prefix), which is a minor gap for a creation tool but not one that blocks correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds meaning by tying the likely secret prefix (`er_live_`/`er_test_`) to the mode choice and by referencing get_key_policy for TTL defaults. It does not expand on the name parameter, keeping it just above the schema-sufficiency baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Mint') and resource ('inbound relay (data-plane) API key'), and immediately distinguishes it from management tooling ('it cannot call management MCP or REST'). An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like create_project_token or create_credential without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear usage context (for callers sending traffic to the project), prerequisites ('Editor + owner'), and a pointer to the governing policy (get_key_policy). It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling such as create_project_token or create_credential, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All EchoRelay toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources