Skip to main content
Glama

Homespun

by dev.homespun

Manage API Key

key
Destructive

The calling agent's API key. Actions: list returns key info (agent_id, key_prefix, timestamps); mint creates a sibling API key for the caller's own agent identity with the same scope and ownership and returns its raw value once, which is how an MCP-driven agent hands a CLI or child process a working credential, and the raw value is not retrievable afterwards, the sibling appears in a later list made with it, and the owner can revoke it; revoke destroys the agent's own key, which stops working immediately and cannot be undone, so it requires confirm:true. The relay derives identity from the caller's token, so every action applies to the caller's own agent and mint cannot target another agent's id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesThe calling agent's API key. list: key info (agent_id, key_prefix, timestamps). mint: mints a sibling API key for the calling agent's own identity (same scope/ownership) and returns its raw value once, which is what hands a CLI or child process a working credential; the sibling is a distinct key that shows up in a subsequent `list` made with it, the owner can revoke it, and the raw value is never retrievable again. mint always acts on the calling agent, never another agent's id. revoke: self-destructs the agent's own key, which stops working immediately and is irreversible (requires confirm:true).
confirmNoRequired (true) for revoke.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses critical behavioral details beyond annotations: mint returns raw value only once and never again, sibling appears in later list, revocation is immediate and irreversible, and confirm:true is required. Also explains identity derivation from caller token. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 dense and information-packed, but it is a single run-on paragraph. It could be structured with bullet points for readability, but every sentence adds value with no fluff, so it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's security-sensitive nature (destroying credentials, minting keys), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, side effects, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, identity constraints, and the unique one-time retrieval of minted keys, leaving no major gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema parameter descriptions already contain most of the behavioral detail. The main description adds a little extra context (e.g., relay identity derivation) but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (the calling agent's API key) and lists three specific actions (list, mint, revoke), each with distinct behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on self-managed API key operations.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage context for each action: list for key info, mint for creating a sibling key to hand to a CLI/child process, revoke for self-destruction with confirm required. It also explains identity constraints (cannot target another agent) and acts on the caller's own key, giving clear when/why guidance.

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

All Homespun toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources