Create an additional API key for this account. Requires an existing API key. Unverified accounts may have only one key; verified accounts may have three. Usage is counted per account, not per key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | optional kind: user or agent, default agent | |
| name | No | optional key name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| key_id | Yes | ||
| limits | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
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?
Annotations do not reveal much beyond non-read-only and non-destructive intent. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: a prerequisite, account-level limits, and usage counting per account rather than per key. This helps the agent anticipate side effects.
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 concise sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what it does, the prerequisite, and account-level constraints. No filler or redundant content.
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?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema present. The description covers prerequisites, limits, and accounting behavior sufficiently. It does not describe error cases when limits are reached, but that is a minor gap for a simple creation tool.
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 schema already explains both parameters. The description does not add extra param-level meaning, but it does clarify that the created key is additional to existing keys, which is context beyond parameter names. 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 and resource: create an additional API key for this account. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_api_keys and revoke_api_key, so an agent can identify this as the creation operation.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: requires an existing API key, and explains key limits for unverified vs verified accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a create operation.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct resource-action boundaries (inventory vs. watch patterns vs. notifications vs. search). The search tools overlap somewhat—especially search_product_recalls_by_upc, search_product_recalls_from_image, and search_recalls_by_identifier—but their input types and intent are described well enough to avoid major confusion.
The overwhelming majority follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_inventory_product, list_watch_patterns, revoke_api_key). Minor deviations like signup, list_inventory, and search_recalls_by_identifier (instead of search_product_recalls_by_identifier) keep it from being perfectly consistent.
With 19 tools, the server is slightly on the heavier side, but the count is justified by covering several distinct areas: account/key management, inventory, watch patterns, recall search, and notifications. Each tool appears to serve a real purpose, though a few search variants could arguably be consolidated.
The set covers the core lifecycle well: signup, key management, inventory and watch pattern add/list/remove, multiple recall search paths, recall detail lookup, and notification read state. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for inventory items or watch patterns and no bulk notification actions, but agents can work around these.