Create a short-lived MCP session token from an API key. Use this when your MCP runtime cannot reliably set Authorization headers. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Fabric API key from bootstrap or key management. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, providing no behavioral hints. The description adds that the token is short-lived and that no authentication is required, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose details like token lifespan, side effects, or error conditions, leaving a transparency gap.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a constraint. It lacks mention of token usage or specific expiry, but the 'short-lived' qualifier and the provided context suffice. Given low complexity, it is relatively complete.
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% and already describes the api_key parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool creates a short-lived MCP session token from an API key, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fabric_create_identity and fabric_get_categories by focusing on session token creation.
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 explicitly says 'Use this when your MCP runtime cannot reliably set Authorization headers', providing a clear condition for use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.
All 7 tools have clearly distinct purposes: identity creation, metadata retrieval, category/region discovery, session management, and two-step recovery. No overlap.
Every tool follows the 'fabric_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with consistent snake_case. Verbs are descriptive (create, get, login, recovery_start, recovery_complete) making the convention predictable.
7 tools cover essential identity lifecycle steps (creation, session, recovery) and discovery (categories, regions, meta). This is well-scoped for the domain without bloat.
Core creation and discovery tools exist, but missing configuration updates (e.g., webhook URL, recovery key setup) and identity deletion. The recovery flow is complete, but post-creation setup must be done manually or via other means.