Create a new FlexYield API key for the authenticated account. Returns the plaintext token exactly once — store it securely, it cannot be retrieved again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A label for the key, e.g. 'agent-7' or 'Production' | |
| monthly_request_cap | No | Optional monthly request budget for this key (fleet spend control); omit for uncapped |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the most important behavioral trait: the plaintext token is returned exactly once and cannot be retrieved again, with a storage warning. It does not cover auth scope or side effects beyond creation, but the one-time disclosure is high-value.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core action is first, and the critical security caveat is second; every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential non-obvious fact (one-time token) and leaves parameter details to the schema. It could add explicit notes on permissions or key limits, but nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents name and monthly_request_cap with examples and semantics.
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?
States a specific action ('Create') and resource ('FlexYield API key') and adds the defining one-time-return behavior, which separates it from retrieval tools like get_key and revocation tools like revoke_api_key. No ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.
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 does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to choose this over get_key, revoke_api_key, or set_key_budget. The use case is implied by 'Create a new,' but there are no exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent gets only implicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.