The coach's API keys (name, prefix, last used) — never the secret.
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": "list_api_keys"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by declaring exactly which fields are returned (name, prefix, last used) and, critically, that the secret is never exposed. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but the security disclosure is a meaningful addition beyond the annotation.
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?
The description is a single tight sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the resource and immediately qualifies the returned fields and the security guarantee, so 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 simple, parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states what is listed, which fields are returned, and that the secret is excluded. Pagination, ordering, or response shape are not described, but these are minor omissions for such a straightforward listing operation.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there is no parameter-level meaning to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on returned data rather than inventing input details.
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 identifies the resource (the coach's API keys) and lists the fields returned (name, prefix, last used), making the read-only listing purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_api_key or revoke_api_key, but the noun phrase combined with the tool name is unambiguous.
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 contains no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_api_key or revoke_api_key. The listing intent is implied by the name, but there is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent choose correctly.
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.