List the project's inbound API keys as metadata only — the secret plaintext is never returned, only id, name, mode, prefix, createdAt, createdBy, lastUsedAt, expiresAt, revokedAt, successorId, predecessorId, and successorRevealedAt. Returns {keys: []} with no paging — every key on the project comes back in one call.
| 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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the secret plaintext is never returned, only a specific set of metadata fields is included, and the response shape is `{keys: []}` with no paging. This gives the agent a clear picture of what will happen and what to expect.
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?
Two sentences are used efficiently: the first states the operation and the key non-behavior (no secret plaintext), and the second gives the response shape and paging behavior. The field enumeration is necessary because no output schema exists.
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 no-parameter read-only list tool, the description fully covers the operation, the response format, and the lack of paging. An agent can invoke it without further clarification, and annotations already confirm it is non-destructive.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter gap to compensate for. The description adds value by enumerating the exact response fields, which is more than the empty schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the project's inbound API keys') and immediately clarifies it returns metadata only, never the plaintext secret. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_api_key, revoke_api_key, and rotate_api_key.
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 implies the tool is used to retrieve all API key metadata in one call, and explicitly notes there is no paging. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as create_api_key for obtaining plaintext secret values.
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.
