Skip to main content
Glama

Manage App Service Credentials

credentials
Destructive

A v2 app's scoped service credentials (#1354, #1355): the bearer token an app owner points a backend they host themselves at, so their own server can read and write the app's data without holding the owner's full authority. Effective permission is always the intersection of the allowlist and what the app's owner could do, so a credential can only ever narrow, never widen, and it carries no role. Actions: mint creates one and returns its raw token shown once, never recoverable afterward (only its hash is stored); list returns the app's credentials with their allowlist and status, never any token material; pause reversibly stops one; resume undoes a pause (never a revoke, which is permanent); rotate issues a fresh token while the old one keeps working for an overlap window, so a running backend picks up the new token with no outage; revoke kills one permanently. Every action here is owner-or-owning-agent only: a service credential itself can reach none of these, by construction, so it can never mint or widen a sibling of itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNomint only. Defaults to explicit: an unnamed collection is denied, so the credential can never reach anything it was not handed (the shape for a contractor's backend). following: an unnamed collection falls through to the owner's own authority, so the credential tracks the app as it grows and each `grants` entry only narrows one collection (the shape for the owner's own backend). Neither mode can ever exceed what the app's owner could do; the effective permission is always the intersection.
labelNomint only. Optional owner-facing label shown in the credential list.
actionYesmint: create a scoped service credential, the bearer token an app owner points a backend they host themselves at (app_id; optional mode/grants/members/label/ttl_seconds). list: the app's credentials, their allowlist and status, never a token (app_id). pause: reversibly stop one, in force on its very next request (app_id+credential_id). resume: undo a pause; never undoes a revoke, which is permanent (app_id+credential_id). rotate: issue a fresh token and keep the old one working for an overlap window so a running backend picks it up without a gap (app_id+credential_id; optional overlap_seconds). revoke: kill one permanently and idempotently (app_id+credential_id).
app_idYesThe app id.
grantsNomint only. The allowlist: one entry per collection naming which of read/create/update/delete this credential may attempt there (an entry may name zero ops, which under `following` is how one collection is carved out of an otherwise app-wide credential). A collection named here must be a real declared collection on the app; a typo is rejected with a 400 rather than silently doing nothing.
membersNomint only. Opt in to the app's member directory appearing in this credential's boot/hello payloads. Defaults to false: a credential that never learns a member id cannot stamp one into a relation field.
ttl_secondsNomint only. Omit for the server's bounded default (365 days, clamped to a server maximum). null means no expiry, the explicit opt-in a long-running backend asks for; it is never the default.
credential_idNopause / resume / rotate / revoke. The credential id (see list's `id` field).
overlap_secondsNorotate only. How long the superseded token keeps resolving, so a running backend can pick up the new one with no gap. Defaults to the server default (1 day); 0 kills the old token immediately, the "this leaked" case.

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=true), the description discloses rich behavioral details: the raw token is shown only once and never recoverable; pause is reversible, revoke is permanent; rotate keeps the old token working for an overlap window; effective permission is the intersection of allowlist and owner's authority; and typo in grants is rejected with a 400. These go far beyond what the annotations indicate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core concept. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the 'Actions:' list is organized clearly. While slightly verbose, the complexity of six actions with distinct behaviors justifies the length. Nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains return behaviors (mint returns the token once; list returns metadata, never token material), error behavior (typo rejection with 400), security scope (owner-only, credential cannot self-escalate), and parameter applicability. All nine parameters are covered. It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by grouping parameters per action (e.g., mode and grants are mint-only, overlap_seconds for rotate) and explaining how they interact (e.g., under 'following' mode, a zero-op grants entry narrows one collection). This elevates the contribution above the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: managing scoped service credentials for a v2 app. It not only names the resource ('credentials') but explains the concept of the bearer token and its role, and it distinguishes each of the six actions (mint, list, pause, resume, rotate, revoke) with specific verbs and outcomes, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like 'key' and 'grants'.

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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use each action, such as mint for creating a credential, rotate for issuing a fresh token with overlap, and revoke for permanent deletion. It also notes a key constraint: every action is owner-or-owning-agent only. While it does not name alternative tools, the clear per-action scenarios give strong usage guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, with row operations (list, get, upsert, update, delete, restore) well separated. Some boundaries like apps vs deploy_app and credentials vs grants require careful reading, but descriptions resolve the overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix resource nouns (apps, attachments, connections) with verb_noun actions (delete_row, deploy_app). Singular and plural forms are inconsistent, and there is no uniform pattern across the set.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is on the heavy side, but the platform's breadth (app deployment, data, auth, community) justifies the count. Each tool has a distinct role, though the set slightly exceeds the typical well-scoped range.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full app lifecycle: deploy, manage, delete, row CRUD with restore, attachments, credentials, and community features. Minor gaps like no dedicated row search or outbound webhook management are workable via existing tools.