Skip to main content
Glama

LastPing

by dev.lastping

list_api_keys

Destructive

List all API keys in the project. Never returns plaintext key values — only the non-secret prefix, which is enough to identify a key for revoke_api_key. Each key includes last_used_at and last_used_surface (which client — "mcp", "terraform", or "api" — most recently authenticated with it), both absent if the key has never been used. last_used_surface is best-effort client self-identification from a caller-controlled, spoofable User-Agent header: useful for answering "did my client ever successfully authenticate?", never a basis for trust or authorization decisions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description portrays a read-only listing operation with no side effects, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a direct safety-profile contradiction that could mislead an agent about whether this tool mutates or destroys state.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core operation, the second explains the never-plaintext guarantee and its revocation value, and the third adds useful presence/absence semantics. The spoofability caveat is important and concisely delivered. No filler.

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 does a strong job covering return relevance: non-secret prefix, last_used_at, last_used_surface, absence when unused, and trust caveats. It does not describe the exact response shape or ordering, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies here because the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List all API keys in the project.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create_api_key and revoke_api_key by explaining it returns only non-secret prefixes useful for identifying keys before revocation. The scope and behavior are unambiguous.

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 implies a clear use case: list API keys when you need to identify one for revoke_api_key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but since there is no other list-api-key sibling, the guidance is adequate.

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

All LastPing 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by clear resource domains, and the long descriptions carefully separate similar reads. The main ambiguity is create_monitor's upsert behavior overlapping with update_monitor, and list_incidents vs list_open_incidents could be confused from names alone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost every tool uses verb_noun snake_case with a consistent CRUD vocabulary like create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_. Minor deviations exist: get_alert_templates is really a list operation, and discover_monitors_reconcile is an awkward verb-object-verb construction.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-six tools is a heavy surface for an agent to navigate, even for a full monitoring platform. Most tools are individually purposeful, but the count exceeds the range where an agent can quickly scan and select, and the set would be easier to handle if split across domains.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is strong: monitors, destinations, agents, status pages, API keys, routes, alert templates, incidents, run history, discovery, and Terraform export all have read and lifecycle operations. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit single-incident view and no acknowledgment/resolution action beyond notes, but core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources