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. | |
| auth_token | No | Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: it discloses that the raw key is shown only once, that only the hash is stored, and that the key cannot be retrieved again. It also notes the key is durable and free.
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 with the main purpose, then delivers critical behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though the trailing 'Free.' is minor extra information that does not reduce clarity.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including the one-time visibility of the key and the durable nature of the credential. Nothing critical is missing 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already provides adequate descriptions.
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 clearly states the action: issuing a durable `lasoak_` API key for the account. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context is distinct from siblings like get_auth_link or refresh_token.
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 this is normally a human dashboard action, which gives contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly state when an agent should use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is present but indirect.
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.