Skip to main content
Glama

List SSH keys

list_ssh_keys
Read-onlyIdempotent

List SSH keys in your workspace.

Tool call template

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_ssh_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceNoWorkspace ID (optional: defaults to the authenticated workspace)
environmentNoEnvironment name (optional: defaults to the environment this session acts in)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / env
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Environment name (optional — defaults to main)",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / environment
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Environment name (optional: defaults to the environment this session acts in)",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / workspace / description
      Previous value: -"Workspace ID (optional — defaults to authenticated workspace)"New value: +"Workspace ID (optional: defaults to the authenticated workspace)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether keys are returned in full or masked, whether secrets are included, or whether results are scoped by permissions — so it contributes essentially no behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is not padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, so little prose is strictly required. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what a key record contains (name, fingerprint, creation date) or whether results are paginated, leaving an agent to guess at return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters document their own defaults (authenticated workspace, session environment). The description's phrase "in your workspace" loosely echoes the workspace parameter but adds no format, syntax, or fallback details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List SSH keys") and a scope ("in your workspace"), so an agent knows exactly what it returns at a high level. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent read tools such as list_secrets or explain how it relates to add_ssh_key, so sibling differentiation is absent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like list_secrets (also credential-related) or when to prefer add_ssh_key. Usage is only implied by the tool name; no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.