Issue an API key
Issues a durable lasoak_ API key for the account. The raw key is returned once — only its hash is stored, so it cannot be retrieved again. Normally the human does this from the dashboard.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | A label to recognize the key by. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses important side-effect and security behavior beyond annotations: the raw key is shown once, only a hash is stored, and the key cannot be retrieved again. This substantially helps an agent reason about consequences, and it does not contradict the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the action appears first, followed by the critical one-time-raw-key caveat. The heading-like first sentence and 'Free.' are slightly redundant but not wasteful.
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?
Given the single optional parameter, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts: what is created, the credential-handling caveat, and normal human/dashboard context. It does not explain key lifecycle follow-ups, but that is not required for correct invocation.
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?
The only parameter, label, is already fully described in the input schema ('A label to recognize the key by'), and the description adds no additional semantics about how the label behaves. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it issues a durable `lasoak_` API key for the account, and adds the distinguishing detail that the raw key is returned only once. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.
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 only usage guidance is 'Normally the human does this from the dashboard,' which implies privileged/manual operation but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. It does not mention alternatives like exchange_api_key or refresh_token.
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.