Skip to main content
Glama

Tango

by io.applayer

Rotate my signing key

rotate_worker_key

Issue a new signing key for a worker. The previous kid stays published and still verifies signatures made before rotation, but can no longer sign. In delegated mode the new key is generated immediately; in attested mode call request_key_challenge then register_worker_key with your new public key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNo
key_modeNoAssurance mode for the new key. Defaults to the worker's current mode.
worker_idYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that the old key remains verifiable but loses signing ability and that delegated mode generates immediately while attested mode requires additional steps. This goes beyond annotations, which only indicate a mutation and non-destructive action.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a necessary conditional. No redundant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Explains mode-dependent behavior and the required follow-up calls for attested mode. Missing return-value details (no output schema) and does not clarify the reason parameter, but the essential calling flow is covered.

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 only 33% (key_mode has a description). The description mentions 'delegated mode' and 'attested mode' relating to key_mode, but does not explain worker_id or reason. It adds some meaning about key_mode but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States 'Issue a new signing key for a worker' – a clear verb and resource. Explicitly differentiates from other key tools by explaining that the previous kid remains published and verifies old signatures but cannot sign, and describes mode-specific behavior.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for attested mode: 'call request_key_challenge then register_worker_key'. Implicitly distinguishes rotation from issuing or revoking keys by describing the behavior, but does not directly state when to choose this over issue_worker_key.

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

All Tango 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.

Completeness4/5

The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.

Resources