Set or clear the monthly request budget of one of the account's API keys. Pass monthly_request_cap: null (or 0) to remove the cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The API key id (from create_api_key or usage_report) | |
| monthly_request_cap | No | Requests per calendar month this key may spend; null/0 clears the cap |
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 of disclosing mutation behavior. It does reveal the null/0 clearing behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, reversibility, or what happens after the cap is set. This goes only slightly beyond the title.
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 short sentences front-load the operation and the critical edge case (null/0 removes the cap) with no filler. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter setter with a complete schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the call returns or whether setting the cap affects already-consumed requests, which would help an agent fully anticipate the result.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the meaning of null/0. The description restates that convention and adds budget context, but it does not provide meaning beyond what the schema already supplies, so 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 ('Set or clear') and a precise resource ('monthly request budget of one of the account's API keys'), and it explicitly covers the remove-cap behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling key-management tools like revoke_api_key or set_key_services.
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?
It gives the key usage instruction: pass null or 0 to remove the cap, so the agent knows how to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related key tools or mention alternatives such as usage_report for inspecting budgets, leaving when-to-use guidance implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.