create_api_keyCreate an AIPayGen API key with $0.05 of free trial credits. Free. Store the key: it is shown only once.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "create_api_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Optional name for the key, e.g. your agent's name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description earns credit beyond them by disclosing a critical irreversible behavior: the key is displayed only once and must be stored, plus the concrete credit grant. It stops short of stating whether repeat calls mint additional keys or any rate/permission constraints.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler; the one-time-display warning, the most important operational fact, comes last but is unmissable. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.
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 zero-required-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is created, the free credits, and the one-time secret exposure. It could go further on the response shape or whether multiple keys may be created, but nothing essential to a correct call 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 coverage is 100% with a single optional `label` parameter that the schema itself documents with an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.
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 verb+resource ("Create an AIPayGen API key") plus the scope of what is created ($0.05 of free trial credits). No sibling tool creates credentials, so the agent can distinguish it from the read-only lookup tools without opening any schema.
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?
Implies usage through the free-credit framing and the post-call instruction "Store the key: it is shown only once," but never states when to call this versus other tools, nor any prerequisites such as existing account or auth requirements. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.
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.